Stephen Hammond: The Secretary of State will know that No. 10's website on the draft transport Bill states that it will enable
	"local authorities to improve the standard of bus services".
	He will also know that, since deregulation, the average age of the fleet has fallen as investment has risen, and that fares have risen at less than half the rate of council tax. In 2006, overall satisfaction levels are increasing. His predecessor as Secretary of State said:
	"I would be wary of saying that we should go back to the pre-1986 situation."—[ Official Report, 2 July 2003; Vol. 408,c. 404.]
	Will the Secretary of State confirm today that that remains the policy of the Government, and that his proposals will not take us back to the era of regulated buses?

Tom Harris: The Department announced on 22 September 2006 the award of the South Western rail franchise to Stagecoach South Western Trains Ltd for a period of 10 years from 4 February 2007, with the final three years dependent on service performance achieving preset targets.

Harriet Harman: I agree that protection is patchy. It is not as good as we want in all areas, although I want to mention the Poppy project. In some areas, if a young woman is referred to the Poppy project she will be really well looked after and protected and, in turn, is likely to help the criminal justice and immigration agencies to tackle the source of the problem. We want to make absolutely sure that there is good support for victims across the board, but the other thing we need to do from this country—and are increasingly doing—is send a clear message to perpetrators from other countries who want to get into trafficking that there will be severe sentences for those who are caught.
	When I was Solicitor-General I referred to the Court of Appeal a case in which the sentence was 11 years; the Court fully understood the message that needed to be sent and increased the sentence for that offender to 23 years and stripped them of their assets all through Europe. It is right that the House should focus on the issue. We have introduced new criminal offences to tackle trafficking, but we must be vigilant and we must also look at the demand side. Many of us find that difficult to contemplate but we have to face up to it.

Harriet Harman: I agree with my hon. Friend. The poppy project has been very useful, not only in helping the individual women whom it looks after but in working out what more needs to be done, and guiding and helping the Government to develop public policy. The Home Office says that it deals with the immigration status of victims of trafficking on a case-by-case basis. But as my hon. Friend knows, we have been consulting on that, as part of the development of our UK action plan on human trafficking, in which the Joint Committee on Human Rights has played a key part, and further information will be coming forward shortly.

Oliver Heald: As the Minister knows, it is important that her Department sets an example in the field of freedom of information as it is the responsible Department. She has stressed—she did so last month—how committed Ministers are to that. So why does her Department have a worse record than any other in granting freedom of information requests, even when the information is readily available? The average rate for all Departments is 62 per cent. but the Department for Constitutional Affairs has never managed to answer even half of such requests, and in the most recent quarter it scored a miserable 38 per cent. If the Department for Transport can have a result of 78 per cent. of requests answered where the issue is resolvable, why is the DCA such a sink Department in this area? Is it not time that it got its act together?

Vera Baird: I dare say that, because it is full of lawyers, it is careful and cautious in its responses and it takes its time. In fact, over the last quarter 92 per cent. of all Government requests were responded to in time—they met the statutory deadline or a permitted deadline extension—and I reckon that 92 per cent. is rather a good proportion.

Peter Hain: It is a matter for Sinn Fein; but of course, it is important that Sinn Fein makes its position clear.
	This legislation provides the mechanism to go forward. The twin pillars of power sharing and the rule of law are enshrined in the pledge of office that all Ministers must take on 26 March, to take office. The pledge of office requires all Ministers to
	"promote the interests of the whole community represented in the Northern Ireland Assembly towards the goal of a shared future".
	Politicians everywhere, particularly those who aspire to govern, are there not just to represent and work for those who voted for them and loaned them their mandate but for those who did not.
	In a society that has been as bitterly divided as Northern Ireland, politicians who have been entrusted with a mandate that will give them access to power have an even greater obligation to govern for all and not just for their own. The pledge requires all Ministers to
	"participate fully in the Executive Committee, the North-South Ministerial Council and the British-Irish Council".
	If devolution is to deliver good government, all the institutions of government must function effectively. Anything less than a full commitment to that will sell everyone in Northern Ireland short. The pledge of office also requires Ministers to
	"observe the joint nature of the offices of First Minister and deputy First Minister".
	Those are fundamental tenets of power sharing, which go well beyond the symbolism—important as that is—of two different political traditions working together in equality without sacrificing either principle or integrity.
	On support for the rule of law, the pledge of office, as enshrined in the Bill, could not be clearer. All Ministers will
	"uphold the rule of law based as it is on the fundamental principles of fairness, impartiality and democratic accountability, including support for policing and the courts as set out in paragraph 6 of the St. Andrews Agreement".
	Let me remind the House what paragraph 6, and clause 7(2) of the Bill, says about support for law and order:
	"We believe that the essential elements of support for law and order include endorsing fully the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the criminal justice system, actively encouraging everyone in the community to co-operate fully with the PSNI in tackling crime in all areas and actively supporting all the policing and criminal justice institutions, including the Policing Board".
	I recognise that the issue of policing has been contentious ever since Northern Ireland came into being, and still more so during the conflict, but we are in a very different and much better place now.

Peter Hain: In respect of the earlier point, it is absolutely essential that the Parades Commission—which is the statutorily based body responsible for the marching season, legislated for and part of the law of Northern Ireland—is respected as an institution. That does not mean that people cannot argue that it should be reformed, or that it should not change its methodology. A review of the Parades Commission is going to be undertaken. I should add—and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would have made this point—that the Parades Commission has done an excellent job this year. The marching season was the most peaceful on record— [Interruption.] I accept that that was not just because of the way in which the Parades Commission behaved, but because of the hard work done at local level by Unionists and nationalists, loyalists and republicans.
	There has been no greater example of transformation in Northern Ireland than in policing, led by Sir Hugh Orde, who is recognised and admired the world over for his integrity, toughness, plain speaking and professionalism, deserving the support of the whole community, of every party and of everyone. There is increasing evidence that that is happening, shown by the rising numbers of applicants to join the Police Service of Northern Ireland from the nationalist and republican communities.
	The St. Andrews agreement also included a clear commitment, and a target of May 2008, for the devolution of policing and justice powers to the restored Executive. We expect all concerned to take that target seriously. Indeed, the Bill requires the Assembly to report to the Secretary of State before 27 March 2008 on progress towards the devolution of policing and justice powers. I want to make it clear that, once policing and justice is devolved, there is nothing in the pledge that would remove or unreasonably constrain any future Minister of policing and justice from making legitimate criticism of the police. After all, proper accountability was central to the Good Friday agreement's vision for new policing arrangements in Northern Ireland and was a core element of the Patten report's recommendations. Proper accountability, which can sometimes include constructive criticism, is essential in delivering the police service that Northern Ireland deserves. There is a world of difference between that and a failure to support Northern Ireland policing and justice institutions.
	I remind the House that, this summer, Parliament legislated for devolution of policing and justice. We want to see that delivered so that the whole of Northern Ireland can better have ownership of the rule of law and policing. That is in the interest of everyone: the old lady who is reluctant to go out at night for fear of intimidation from drunken yobs; the woman, her life shattered, who demands that her rapist is apprehended; the victim of murder; the victim of mugging; and the victim of burglary. It is one thing for republicans to explain why, for historic and political reasons, policing has been so neuralgic for them. It is quite another to turn their back on constituents who, as Northern Ireland has normalised, demand safety and security in their lives and demand that it is provided by the police.
	Of course, much of policing has already been devolved and I want to pay tribute to the work of the Policing Board, the police ombudsman and the district policing partnerships for the role that they play in making the Police Service of Northern Ireland more accountable than perhaps any other force anywhere else in the world.

Peter Hain: First, it is important that Sinn Fein supports all the institutions of policing, including the Policing Board and the DPPs. There is no question about that. The point that the hon. Gentleman raises is one that the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) and his party have raised with me, too. His party, especially, has supported independent candidates. Some of them have been from his party. Those candidates have taken a principled stand in moving forward in the new era of the PSNI and have often had a rough time in their communities. There has been a great deal of intimidation—sometimes threats and sometimes actual violence. The vice-chairman of the Policing Board, Denis Bradley, was attacked in a pub in Derry simply because he had been courageous and had done an excellent job on the Policing Board. I absolutely agree with the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) that those members who stood by the policing institutions deserve support and recognition.
	The future of devolution for Northern Ireland rests on twin pillars: if either one collapses, the whole edifice collapses. We must know that the parties want to move forward to 26 March on that basis. That is why 24 November—this Friday—is important. When that deadline was set, well before St. Andrews, I said that we needed to know by then that a deal was on and that we were on track for a lasting political settlement—devolution. That is still the case. Without knowing that, there cannot be a transitional Assembly. Without knowing that, there cannot be an election. Without knowing that, there cannot be devolution. The sequence set out at St. Andrews will not be set aside. No one should see this as some kind of virility test to see who will blink first. If the Assembly has to be dissolved because we cannot move forward, it will be. I sincerely hope that it will not come to that.
	As the Preparation for Government Committee showed over the summer, meeting with all parties present for 43 sessions between 5 June and 30 October, the parties can work constructively together when they choose to. Indeed they did so yesterday in the first meeting of the Programme for Government Committee. That was the first of what I am sure will be many meetings, because it is clear that there is considerable work to be done as we move to the point where the people can give their verdict in the election to be held 7 March 2007. There is work to be done on education reform, rates, water charges and rural homes planning; work to be done on the ministerial code; and work to be done on preparing for devolution of policing and justice—work to be done not, as now, by direct rule Ministers, but by locally accountable politicians.
	I am conscious that there were a range of views on how the commitment at St. Andrews to consult the people should be met. There is a case for a referendum, which does have the attraction of being a single issue question, but if a referendum were to be held, an election would follow within a year of the new Executive getting down to work. What the newly devolved institutions will need is a prolonged period of stability in the four years before the next election is due, in May 2011. For the parties to go into election mode almost from day one would inevitably get in the way of MLAs getting on with the business of government on the wide range of challenges that will face them—education, rates, rural planning, water charges and so on. That is what the people want to see them taking charge of. Of course, the fact that the two main parties indicated that, if there was to be a reference to the people, it should be through an election, was another factor to be considered.

David Lidington: It is never satisfactory when we are invited to bypass the normal procedures of the House for debate and detailed scrutiny, but this is one of those occasions when I believe that it is right for the House to give the Government the benefit of the doubt and to co-operate in seeing the Bill through all its stages today. It is somewhat ironic that we are being invited to repeal the Northern Ireland Act 2006, which we solemnly debated and passed as recently as July. However, as the Secretary of State hinted, the Government are in a tight spot as regards this Friday's deadline, whereby the current statutory position is that on Friday he must either restore the devolved institutions or dissolve the Assembly and cease the payment of salaries and allowances altogether. I argued consistently that the November deadline was over-optimistic; the Secretary of State will probably riposte that had he not set the November deadline we might not have moved as far forward as was achieved at St. Andrews.
	One thing that is clear is that over the past few months we have at least inched closer to an agreement. We are closer now than we were back in July. The Independent Monitoring Commission has reported that the provisionals have dismantled key departments of their paramilitary organisation and the IRA leadership is working to stop the involvement of its members in crime.
	St. Andrews was a step forward. I welcome the clear statements from the Democratic Unionist party, particularly from the right hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley), that it is willing to take part in a power-sharing Executive that includes Sinn Fein, provided that the basic democratic ground rules are accepted and observed by all parties. It is important that we all acknowledge that that commitment from the Unionists is a remarkable and generous step for them to take, given the bloody history of the Provisional IRA and the personal bereavements that so many people in the Unionist parties and the democratic nationalist tradition have had to bear.
	However, one key element is missing. There is a gap in the framework of arrangements that would allow devolution to proceed. If Sinn Fein is to be accepted, as it claims, as a normal democratic political party, and if its leaders are to serve as Ministers in Northern Ireland, it must say and show by its actions that it supports the police and the courts of the place that it will be helping to govern. Doing so does not mean that Sinn Fein, or anyone else for that matter, needs to stop campaigning for votes on a manifesto that seeks further reforms to the police service or the criminal justice system—we frequently have such debates in this Chamber and campaign on those issues out in the country—but it does mean requiring that the republican movement accepts that the authority exercised by the Police Service of Northern Ireland and by the courts is legitimate. It means people showing its practical support by reporting crimes to the police, by giving evidence to policy inquiries, and by acting as witnesses in court cases—in other words, it means accepting the basic responsibilities held not only by Ministers, but by all citizens in any normal democracy. Those are responsibilities that all Members of the House of all parties, and every mainstream political party in the Republic of Ireland, take for granted.

Nigel Dodds: The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely important point, as he is dealing with the nub of the issue. For people in Northern Ireland it is vital that there is a credible period in which to test individuals who have engaged in the butchery that has been under way for 30 years. They need to move pretty soon—any time now, in fact—on policing, criminality and paramilitary structures in order to be credible. There is a 10-week period from today until an election is called, so most people think that that condition cannot be met.

David Lidington: I can only repeat that the electoral timetable will impose its own pressures on political developments, precisely because candidates at those elections must decide what to include in their election addresses, and what they will say on the doorstep to the people whose support they are trying to secure. They must answer the kind of questions from electors that the hon. Gentleman suggested. It is a shame, to put it mildly, that Sinn Fein failed to move over the summer.
	The Secretary of State touched on the following point. When I talk to Sinn Fein politicians, I sometimes wonder whether they fully appreciate the nature of the Police Service of Northern Ireland. I believe that much of the criticism of the Royal Ulster Constabulary was based on an unfair caricature, so it is disappointing that, even today, Sinn Fein spokesmen appear to resort to that ancient caricature to describe the PSNI of the early 21st century.
	A few weeks ago, with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, I visited Garnerville, where we met a number of police recruits. All the senior police officers left the room, leaving my right hon. Friend and me alone with those new recruits. We both left the meeting inspired by a group of young men and women from both traditions in Northern Ireland who were committed to delivering modern, effective community policing to the men and women of Northern Ireland, whatever their political or religious or cultural traditions. We heard young men and women from the Ardoyne and other nationalist and republican heartlands saying that whereas their parents' generation would certainly have shunned the police and would never have contemplated a career in the police, they believed that they were helping to build something that was new, exciting and in the interests of everyone in the whole of Northern Ireland. Sinn Fein leaders need to wake up to the reality of what is going on. I also hear from police officers on the ground that ordinary men and women in republican heartlands increasingly want to see effective neighbourhood policing, and they want their political leaders in Sinn Fein to lift the ban on co-operation with the PSNI that I am afraid that it still seeks to impose through the threat of intimidation.

Paul Murphy: I very much welcome the Bill and I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his ministerial team and, of course, the parties in Northern Ireland on the progress that they have made so far on the St. Andrews agreement. My right hon. Friend will recall that one of our predecessors as Secretary of State for Wales referred to devolution as a process, not an event. I did not share that view with regard to Welsh devolution, but I certainly share it with regard to Northern Ireland.
	The Bill will alter the Northern Ireland Act 1998 in many instances. I had the privilege of steering that Act through the House because it was based on the Belfast—or Good Friday—agreement. There are occasions when it is necessary to change the way in which arrangements for governance in Northern Ireland are dealt with, and I welcome the changes in the Bill on consultation.
	When we had the privilege of hearing my right hon. Friend's statement on the St. Andrews agreement, one of the sketchwriters said that he was good cop and bad cop combined. I suppose that if I were in his place, I would have to do more or less the same thing. However, we have to be a little careful about deadlines and closing down things, or other draconian measures that might arise from the way in which we deal with matters over the weeks and months ahead. I know what the reasoning is—that we cannot go on as we are for ever—but the political and peace process in Northern Ireland has been going on for a long time and will continue for a long time—longer than any of us are in the House of Commons.
	We have to be very careful not to be patronising to the local political parties in Northern Ireland and the way in which they deal with these matters. I do not suggest for one second that my right hon. Friend is patronising, but it is a danger for all Governments. After all, the Belfast agreement was not made by the British or Irish Governments, although technically in law it was. It was facilitated and driven by the Governments, but in reality it would have been a complete failure if it had not been based on the work of the local parties. Any agreement in Northern Ireland will fail unless it is based on that. It is the ownership of any agreement or negotiations that makes them successful. The two Governments could have sat down and written the Belfast agreement in a couple of weeks and it would not have been a million miles away from what eventually emerged, but it would not have worked. The two and a half years it took to create were necessary because they involved the parties talking about the issues and, above all, reaching agreement on them. In paying tribute to the local parties in Northern Ireland for doing what they have to do, we have to bear that in mind in the weeks and months ahead.
	I thought that the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) gave an exemplary description of where Northern Ireland is now in respect of policing, and I agree with every word he said. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made similar statements. Sinn Fein and the republican movement have come a long way and we have the Independent Monitoring Commission to monitor developments. However, it is a complete nonsense for any agreement to go ahead without the realisation that every party in Northern Ireland has to sign up to the rule of law and the new policing arrangements. People sometimes forget that it was very difficult for the Unionist community to accept the changes that the Patten report brought about, as it also was for the Social Democratic and Labour party and the Catholic Church in Northern Ireland—but accept them everybody did. Of course, some people would like changes to be made, and we will consider some amendments to the Bill later this afternoon. Nevertheless, people made sacrifices for the new policing arrangement—the Police Service of Northern Ireland—to work as well as it does.
	I also agree with the hon. Member for Aylesbury that elections are an issue—that the closer we get to the elections in Northern Ireland, the more difficult it will be to get away from electioneering. It is true that when the comprehensive agreement was almost agreed in the winter of 2004, Sinn Fein would have signed up to the policing arrangements in Northern Ireland very quickly. I see no reason why that cannot happen again, and every reason why it should happen in order to develop the process.
	There has to be a special arrangement for the restoration of devolution in Northern Ireland, because devolution there is not quite like Welsh or Scottish devolution. Those devolved systems are important, but devolution in Northern Ireland is about more than governance—it is about our ability to govern together. All the months and years spent establishing how the Assembly and other institutions were to be set up were based on the premise that we would govern together. As soon as that is achieved, the problem of devolution will be resolved, and we can get on with the business of governing the people for whom we have a mandate.
	Another consequence will be that there will be an end to direct rule, which was brought in as an historical necessity 30 years ago and should long since have gone. I have said more than once in this House that I very much regretted having to deal with education, health and social services as part of my Northern Ireland portfolio, because it was not my business to do that, any more than it is the business of another Labour Member. Labour Members have no mandate in Northern Ireland: not one person there votes for the Labour party. It is important that people there should be governed by people with the proper mandate. The longer direct rule goes on, the more difficult it will be for devolution to be accepted and to become embedded into the constitutional system of Northern Ireland.
	It is important that when my right hon. Friend and his ministerial colleagues deal with the issues that come before them between now and the end of March, they take serious account of the views of local politicians. I have said that before, but it is worth repeating. I do not express a view one way or the other, but the agreement states that it will be left to the Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive to deal with education. I believe that other issues could be left to the Assembly. Of course, if no agreement is reached, the situation will be different, but we all agree that there should be an agreement. If there is, major decisions on how the people of Northern Ireland live their lives should be left until the new Assembly is up and running.
	Some people believe that it would be better not to have devolution and to leave the governance of Northern Ireland to Members of Parliament here and the seven new super local authorities that will be formed by joining together existing local authorities. That is not the answer to the problems in Northern Ireland—there has to be proper devolution there in the same way as in Scotland and Wales. The Secretary of State knows my views about having seven local authorities, so I shall not rehearse them, but I do not believe that the way forward for the governance of Northern Ireland is through local government and Members of Parliament. The people of Northern Ireland should be governed by their political leaders and the parties that are represented in the Assembly. That is what we all hope and pray for.
	I wish to say only one more thing, and it is in my capacity as co-chairman of the British-Irish Inter-Parliamentary Body.

Lembit �pik: It may seem unusual to those who have been listening to the Queen's Speech debates that we have interrupted them for this important debate, but as others, including the shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, have said, we agree that the importance of what we are trying to do justifies the change in programming from what would be regular at this stage in our parliamentary proceedings.
	Some may regard Northern Ireland politics as dreary, but I prefer to regard our machinations today as a light and refreshing sorbet between the heavy courses of the Queen's Speech debates.
	I start with the debate about deadlines, which is rather important. It is clear that once again the Secretary of State wants to underline the fact that the deadlines in the legislation are cast in stone. He also made it clear that Northern Ireland's political parties should not assume that they can do a deal five minutes after midnight. However, everything that we have seen before suggests otherwise; almost every deadline in the Northern Ireland peace process has been broken, moved or abandoned.
	I take the Secretary of State back to 26 April 2006 and the Second Reading of the Northern Ireland Act 2006the measure that we are seeking to alter today. The hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) said
	he is not telling the House that, were the parties in sight of an agreement on 24 November, he would bring down the guillotine, is he? Presumably we are considering not a final and ultimate but a flexible date.
	The Secretary of State responded:
	I am afraid that I cannot reassure the hon. Gentleman about that. The Bill sets the date in statute. As I said earlier, the Government will not blink. If eleventh-hour attempts are made on 24 November to force us to blink, people will be disappointed.
	I asked the Secretary of State:
	Will he assure us that they are genuinely not flexible? I ask that because, as he knows, my great anxiety is that the Government's credibility has been somewhat tarnished by allowing deadlines to be flexible and, indeed, by occasionally ignoring them. If he wants the Bill to work, he must impress on everybody that the deadlines are not negotiable.
	The Secretary of State replied:
	I have already done that but I am happy to accept the hon. Gentleman's invitation to emphasise and underline as much as necessaryin flashing neon lights, if he wishes and if that is not a mixed metaphorthat the deadline is for real. The salaries and allowances will stop at midnight on 24 November. The Assembly will no longer sit, which it will be entitled to do after 15 May, and that will be that.[ Official Report, 26 April 2006; Vol. 445, c. 597-98.]
	The truth tells a different story. With the best intentions, the Secretary of State has blinked and altered the goal posts yet again. I do not condemn the Government for that change, but in response to the question that the Secretary of State implicitly asked me, it matters because he has to recognise an alternative outcome from today's legislation: a new precedent for peace in Northern Ireland, whereby we persistently re-establish deadlinesperhaps on a six-monthly or annual basis, as we do with the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005so that we ensure a peace of sorts, but not the re-establishment of devolution.
	What would I do if I were in the Secretary of State's position? It is possible that I would find myself in the same situation, but the reason that this point is salient to the debate is that for the Bill to have credibility the deadlines, too, must have credibility. When the Secretary of Stateor the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson)sums up the debate, I hope that we will be given some new assurance that the March deadlines are not as flexible as all the others.
	The Secretary of State's claims that the Government have not shifted the goal posts, or shifted the deadlines again, may seem credible to him, but everybody knows that the Government have renegotiated the deadlines because they think that is right for the peace process. I stress again that I do not condemn the Secretary of State for that decisionthe shadow Secretary of State made the point that he, too, might have found himself in the same positionbut the Government must have a strategy to ensure that the provisions we pass today will not be subject to further modification next year.

Lembit �pik: When the Liberal Democrats take power in 2009, many things are going to changeand that will be one of them.
	The Government have also missed an opportunity to bind all parties into a firm commitment to build a shared future in order to counter the tendencies to separation. While we welcome the commitment to a shared future within the proposed pledge of office, I am not convinced that it will be sufficient to counter the separatist tendencies within the new structures. A short-term fix to restore devolution may be superficially attractive but, particularly if it is based on tactical rather than strategic considerations, it will not really secure long-term peace. More general flaws within the Good Friday agreement as established and operated include institutionalised sectarianism, the politics of them versus us over control of territory and resources, the failure of moderation and accommodation to be incentivised, and entrenched inter-ethnic competition that rewards ethnic outbidders.
	My response to the question posed by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) is that we need to address the four key issues, and our amendments will be designed to do so. If the Government go down their current path, the problems are, in my view, set to get worse. There are also inherent difficulties and dangers in the Government focusing almost exclusively on expediency and tactical considerations in order to secure some sort of a peace and a restored Assembly.
	The lack of inclusivity will bring a number of negative consequences. It limits the number of ideas placed on the table, risks missing certain aspects of the process that need to be addressed, removes the ability of other parties to put more pressure on the recalcitrant parties and focuses on the most negative parties, to some extent enabling them to reinforce their position by holding the overall political process hostage to fortune. Crucially, it removes any sense of collective ownership of the outcomes and it is important to note that where the Government focus only on two parties, the other parties feel no ownership of the results, which risks them being rejected.
	It is not realistic to restrict all meaningful discussion and evolving documentation to two parties alone, so I suggest that the Government reflect on how they arrived at this legislation and think seriouslyeven at this late stage before implementation, which will unquestionably go throughabout a further consultation process with the parties not directly responsible for creating the wish list that I have described.
	Finally, with those reservations, it is obvious that we will still have to pass the legislation as there is no sensible alternative before us. However, when we discuss somewhat esoterically whether the proposals can work, it is important to note that some of the prime architects who will decide whether it works or not are in their places in the Chamber right now. They have the power to decide whether a power-sharing Assembly will work. Sinn Fein, of course, is not here and, as has been made abundantly clear, it is going to have to play ball, especially over policing. There is no space to mess about. Sinn Fein needs to provide some confidence that it is serious about democracy, otherwise democracy will be compromised.
	Let us remember the stakes. With respect to all the legislation passed through statutory instrument without amendmentcovering everything from water charges and housing rates to tuition fees and changes to the education systemwe need to remember that if it is not fixed in Northern Ireland, it will be enforced in Westminster. For the citizens whom Northern Ireland politicians represent, the stakes are indeed very high.
	In supporting Second Reading, it is more an act of hope than expectation that the deadlines will be made binding. As it stands, there is every reason to think that it will buy us more time to make it work, but I also believe that we should regard the Bill more as a lifeline for peace than as a deadline for devolution.

Mark Durkan: The Bill is designed to implement the St. Andrews deal, and the SDLP has reason to welcome many aspects of it. The deal is essentially about getting all parties to accept the two core ethics of the Good Friday agreement: the requirement for an inclusive democracy and the requirement for a lawful society. It is about getting the DUP to accept power sharing under the Good Friday agreement and challenging Sinn Fein to accept policing under that agreement. In short, it is about implementing the Good Friday agreement.
	The deal is about getting Sinn Fein and the DUP to do what they should have done years ago, not only under the Good Friday agreement, in accepting the opportunities of power sharing in the north, co-operation between north and south and a new beginning for policing. Those decisions could have been made nearly 33 years ago when we had the Sunningdale agreement. If everything works out, and institutions are restored next year, Sinn Fein and the DUP will be in government together in what is effectively Sunningdale digitally remastered.
	Some of us have paid a price in the process for our generosity, tolerance and patience. Our mistakes can be counted in lost seats. However, other mistakes that other parties made consistently in opposing power sharing, north-south structures and a new beginning to policing can be measured in lost years, lost opportunities and, tragically, lost lives.
	We welcome the DUP to the threshold of accepting power sharing, and Sinn Fein to the threshold of accepting the new beginning to policing. However, at St. Andrews we were struck by the fact that spokespersons for the DUP said, We have never had a problem with power sharing as such, and the president of Sinn Fein said, We have never had a problem with policing as such. One is reminded of the observation that was made in an American context, that in politics, irony is just hypocrisy with panache.
	The Bill contains some welcome provisions, which the SDLP sought. Some undo much of the damage that was unnecessarily conceded in the proposed comprehensive agreement in 2004. Some were lacking from the draft clauses that the Secretary of State published last month before we went to St. Andrews. Those draft clauses aimed to implement the failed Sinn Fein-DUP comprehensive agreement.
	We welcome the fact that the right of all parties to be included in government is clearly respected and protected in the Bill, as it was not under the comprehensive agreement. We welcome the fact that the right of parties to make ministerial appointments without vetting and without veto is protected, as it was not under the comprehensive agreement. We also welcome the fact that some of the unnecessary restrictions on the north-south agenda have been lifted.
	Above all, we welcome the sunset clause for the changes. That means that if the DUP does not go into government in March, the amendments to the Northern Ireland Act 1998 in part 2 will be automatically repealed. We sought that sunset clause because we did not want the DUP to get the Bill passed, bank it and then refuse go into government, for whatever reason, with all the other parties, and come back for further legislation in future. Too much of that has already happened in the process, as the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) said. The tragedy of the process is that what gets rewarded gets repeated, and because people get rewarded for putting things off and holding things back, they repeat the trick and come back for more, on top of the failure that they have created.
	All the changes that I have outlined are positive. The SDLP sought them, and they are welcome. The Bill contains other welcome provisions such as the repeal of the suspension legislation. I hope that the Minister of State will tackle in his winding-up speech some other welcome aspects of the St. Andrews agreement for which the Bill does not provide, and perhaps give us some idea of how and when the progress that the Government have promised on them will be made.
	The Bill also contains some serious defects. We did not succeed in mitigating all the damage that was done in the comprehensive agreement or some of the other side deals that the Governments made in the process. Of course, an obvious defect is the question of how the St. Andrews deal will be endorsed. The Government have chosen election, rather than a referendum. So this deal, as a way of implementing the Good Friday agreement, will have no clear mandate of its own. Unfortunately, as some of the debate today has indicated already, it does not even have a clear meaning of its own. There are clear presumptions and understandings about when Sinn Fein will move on policing, which are not written into the deal or into the legislation, and Members still cannot get answers here about what the Government's presumptions are in that regard.
	Instead of the public having a clear chance to endorse a clear dealthe Government would have been able to set the terms of the referendumall the political parties will go into an election with their own manifestos and claim their own different mandates afterwards. It is a fairly safe predictionI am sure that I am not putting ideas into their headsthat those in the DUP will put preconditions for restoration into their manifesto. For instance, they will say that they will impose a fixed time limit on the current power-sharing arrangements of inclusion by d'Hondt. No doubt, they will have demands about the outcome of the parades review that the Secretary of State referred to.
	Of course, those in the DUP will handcuff themselves in relation to when the devolution of justice and policing will happen. We have seen evidence of that since the St. Andrews agreement. They will do their usual trick of saying, We're handcuffed to this sort of hard-line manifesto, and the rest of you are stuck with it. Given that the Secretary of State has spent the past year and a half telling the rest of us that we have to concede all sort of changes in the agreement to the DUP because of its mandate, of course those people believe that an increased mandate will give them increased leverage for those changes. I assure the House that I have not been wrong yet in any of my predictions about the difficulty that the Government's approach has created. Of course the dangers do not end therenor, I regret, does the problem of new vetoes.
	With the changes to the operation of the institutions and decision-making arrangements under some of the provisions in the Bill, there is a danger of unworkable government. Some of the changes invite bad politics and could guarantee bad government, with tit-for-tat vetoes by Ministers over one another. That has come about because the DUP has peddled the myth that Ministers in the devolved Administration could do just what they liked, and there was absolutely no collectivity or scrutiny. That is untrue, given that anything serious had to be passed by the Assembly, just as it would have to be passed anywhere else, and that any expenditure had to be authorised in the budget and through the Department of Finance and Personnel.
	New safeguards are provided if any Minister breaches the ministerial code or an Executive decision. Those were safeguards were provided a number of years ago precisely to protect against some of the concerns that people have mentioned, but the Bill goes further and also provides new, unnecessary and dangerous provisions. Clause 5 imposes a duty on Ministers to abide by the ministerial code and provides that a Minister has no authority to take any decision against it. That might sound attractive and reasonable, but it is unnecessary, unworkable and dangerous.
	First, that provision is unnecessary, since we already have mechanisms to ensure collectivity and accountabilityI have just mentioned some of themand we have proposed sensible improvements to them. Secondly, it is dangerous, as it will encourage Ministers not only to veto one another, but possibly to sue one another. Thirdly, it could cause gridlock and deadlock, with Ministers bringing insignificant decisions to the Executive for fear that the courts might otherwise strike them down.
	Fourthly, that provision could be exploited by vested interests, which have a whole raft of new procedural grounds to challenge ministerial decisions because of the ministerial code's statutory basis. Those grounds would never be tolerated in any other Government. Direct rule Ministers have been taken to court and judicially reviewed just about public consultation on a number of issues, so let us think just how ripe for judicial challenge things will be for people who want to hold up and challenge the Government if they have the ministerial code as a whole new field of play to take to the courts. Fifthly, all this bad politics and bad government will punish the public. How efficient is that? It is not good government, and the Government would not legislate for it here.
	Ministers know that a lot of that is nonsense. The principle, however, as in so much else, is to accept whatever it takes to get the deal. If Sinn Fein and the DUP want it, that is what we must do. If parties sense that the Government are desperate, they keep taking more and more, and asking for more and more. The possibility of bad government does not worry the DUP. It will be happy to have those problems created, as it will say that they are all the fault of inclusion, d'Hondt and so on, and that power sharing is the problem, not the new litany of vetoes that it is picking up in the Bill. It likes the idea of having endless vetoes over other Ministers. When the DUP gets vetoes, it does not just use them, it abuses them. Giving vetoes to the DUP is like asking Attila the Hun to mind one's horse.
	We see that in relation to the devolution of justice and policing. In the failed 2004 Sinn Fein-DUP comprehensive agreement, it was conceded by Sinn Fein that the devolution of justice could come about only if the First Minister and Deputy First Minister proposed that that would happen. Of course that gave the DUP, in the post of First Minister, a clear veto. That was provided for by the House in the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2006, which also provided that parallel consent was essential for devolution of justice and policing, and that that double consent was needed not just for devolution of justice and policing but also for the form of devolution of justice and policing. The DUP therefore ended up with the so-called triple lock. When that Bill passed through the House, we warned that the DUP would abuse those vetoes. Meanwhile Sinn Fein was doing handstands on the basis that the legislation was sealing the devolution of justice and policing and was the missing piece of the jigsaw.
	What, however, have people found out in recent weeks? The hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds) has said that there will be no devolution of justice within a political lifetime. Only yesterday, the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) stated that the DUP would make sure that there was no possibility of a Sinn Fein Justice Minister in his lifetime, pure and simple. They made those assertions on the basis of already having the triple lock. That is how the DUP uses vetoes, and that is why we are proposing amendments that would try to unlock some of the triple lock.

Ian Paisley: As you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am a man of plain speech. People know that I try to keep my word as my bond. I am not interested in any word games tonight. I am interested in peace in the country that I lovepeace for its families and its children. When I spoke at St. Andrews I said:
	The DUP has been consistent in our demand that there must be delivery from the republican movement before devolution can be restored in Northern Ireland. The days of gunmen in government are over.
	I have no interestneither in relation to my m embers nor in relation to the people I represent: the majority of the Unionist population in Northern Irelandin deviating from the course of action that I have taken. I believe that my policy can and will lead to a better Northern Ireland, where peace and justice take the place of terror and strife, when true democracy reigns. For that to happenfor me as the leader of Unionism to enter a Government under the arrangements identified at St. Andrewsthere must be full and unequivocal support for the rule of law, the Police Service and the courts by all Members.
	I was rather alarmed to hear the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) blaming the Democratic Unionist party, as if it did not live up to what it said. He will see in the coming monthseven in a few days, on Fridaywhether we live up to it or not. He will get his answer. I will not move my party in any shape or form into any power-sharing arrangements until the circumstances are right. All the parties in Northern Ireland must agree with this. Sinn Fein must support the Police Service, the royal courts of justice and the rule of law. At this stage, it has not done so, and the hon. Gentleman referred to that. Sinn Fein has said that until it gets a date for the devolution of justice, it will not budge on the timing of support for the police. Sinn Fein must support the police now, and the people must see that it supports the police.
	I am not jumping first or last. Other politicians jumped first: they broke their arms and their legs and are now deserted. At 80 years of age, I have no intention of breaking my legs or my armsI am going to hold on to them. Sinn Fein, at last, has met the resistance of the democrats of Northern Ireland, including many Roman Catholics, who have been in touch with me and said, Big man, you're right. We must have freedom for the police to function in our areas. I listened to a radio broadcast in which a man said that he had been a republican all his days on the Falls road, but that now he wanted the police to come into the Falls road, because there was no peace for the people unless the Police Service came there. From all over Ulster there is a cry: let democracy rule and let each party have one thing in commonthat they support law and order.

Patrick Cormack: As you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have a pressing and long-standing parliamentary commitment tonight, so I shall make a brief speech, but we have just heard an extremely important one, and I hope that the Secretary of State and his ministerial colleagues take note of what was said. I have not always agreed with the right hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley), but today he spoke with force and passion. As he spoke, I could not help but think that the future is not what it used to be. He has held out real hope to the people of Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom. His party is the majority party at the moment, but it is for the people of Northern Ireland to determine, on 7 March, whether it remains in that position. He has indicated that, not withstanding what happened in the pastthe murders, the mutilations, the atrocitieshis party is prepared to sit down with people who perpetrated, supported or condoned those acts, and to seek to work with them in a common cause, for the sake of the government of that part of the United Kingdom.
	We cannot expect any part of the United Kingdom to be governed by people who are not prepared, unequivocally, to sign up to the rule of law and to accept the courts, and the right hon. Gentleman made that plain. I say to the Minister of State that the Government have bent over backwards to try to bring people, and the parties, together, and I support them in that. I devoutly hope and pray that all will be well, and that we will achieve what the Government want to achieve through the Bill.
	However, if there is no credible delivery, and no absolute assurance, it will behove the Government to tell the one party that has refused to play by the democratic rules, and to take its seats in this House, Enough; no more. We will work with the other, democratic, elected parties of Northern Irelandthe Democratic Unionist party, the Ulster Unionist party, the Social Democratic and Labour party, the Alliance party, and the other parties represented in the Assembly. We will work together to create as wide a power-sharing Executive as we can, in communities that play by the democratic rules, and that accept the rule of law.
	I hope that Sinn Fein will do what the right hon. Member for North Antrim says that it should, but the situation cannot go on and on. This is Sinn Fein's ultimate chance, and it must grasp it. If it does not, we must lead the people of Northern Ireland to a democratic future that includes all those who play by the democratic rules.

Eddie McGrady: My hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) spoke about many of the Bill's successes, our hopes for the next couple of months, and the Bill's failings. I want to address two of those failings, which will have a considerable impact on the community in Northern Ireland.
	It is pretty obvious from all that we have heard that there are still many problems to be overcome if there is to be a restoration of the institutions under the agreement. I hope that we can overcome those problems and rein in the vetoes that are allowing people to hold back progress. At a time when direct rule has never looked more high-handed and shady, people need proper accountability. A devolved Government must be restored as soon as possible, and it must be a Government who respond to people's needs, instead of riding roughshod over their interests, even when those interests are unanimously expressed.
	It be wrong, however, for people to regard the last five years purely as a time of deadlocked politics, because there have been great changesnowhere more so than in policing, which has been raised many times today. As the oversight commissioner reported, in just five years, 84 per cent. of Patten's 10-year programme of change has been completed or substantively implemented. That did not happen by accidentit was a huge endeavour by the people of Northern Irelandand it happened mainly because, in 2001, brave people decided to get on board and support law and order, taking risks to deliver a new beginning in policing. Without them, it simply would not have happened.
	Chief among those people were the independent members of the district policing partnerships, which perform the job of holding the police to account on local issues. They are composed of a majority of political members drawn from Northern Ireland's councils, as well as a minority of independent members. Schedule 8 rightly provides that if Sinn Fein is entitled to political membership of a DPP, all political members of that DPP automatically stand down so that space can be made for Sinn Fein councillors to join. That is fairwe do not want to keep Sinn Fein members out of the DPPs for a moment longer than they keep themselves outbut they must join DPPs only if they are committed to membership of the Policing Board.

Andrew MacKinlay: Briefly, despite the curtailment of discussion and parliamentary process, I very much welcome the Bill. The Government have done a great deal to improve the modalities of power sharing and to facilitate much-needed devolved government for the people of Northern Ireland. The Northern Ireland statute book is seriously deficient, because there has not been proper governance there for a quarter of a century.
	We can see that right across the range of services, particularly in regard to matters that relate to the ordinary taxpayer and ratepayer. Those matters include environmental protection and the maintenance and quality of the fabric of Northern Ireland. For example, its beautiful Regency and Georgian architecture does not receive the protection that is afforded to similar places in London or Essex.
	The Government have done a great deal to remedy all this, and they are entitled to take credit for working hard over a long period to facilitate this agreement. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will probably be remembered for many things, but he is certainly entitled to be remembered for the energy, enthusiasm and enormous patience that he has brought to trying to achieve a settlement in IrelandI am using the word Ireland deliberatelyduring his premiership. Many people have contributed to those efforts, some of whom are in the Chamber today. Whatever their persuasion, people have moved and tried to reach concord and agreement, and they are entitled to some acknowledgement for that. We must also remember the significant contribution by members of the United States Administrations in recent years to persuade, cajole and facilitate, and the energy that the Taoiseach has brought to bear on these issues.
	The hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) mentioned MI5 a few moments ago. The Government should, in any event, bring before the House a new security and intelligence Bill. Quite apart from the issue of MI5's responsibility for security in Northern Ireland, the oversight by this Parliament of our security and intelligence services is woefully inadequate. This is one of the few parliamentary democracies that has no parliamentary oversight of its security and intelligence services. There is no parliamentary Committee to provide that oversight. There is a Committee of parliamentarians appointed by the head of the security and intelligence services, the Prime Minister, but there is no parliamentary oversight. That oversight is long overdue. The Foreign Affairs Committee has made this point in the past.
	Having listened to the hon. Gentleman, it seems to me that the answer is that the Government need to introduce with some expedition a new security and intelligence Bill to create a Committee of Parliament, rather than one that is appointed by the Prime Minister, to scrutinise MI5, MI6 and the other security and intelligence services right across the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland. That would give some reassurance to the hon. Gentleman.
	If the Government give an undertaking to expand the membership of the Security and Intelligence Committee, that will require legislation in this House. It cannot be done by a decision of the Prime Minister or by order. The Government should come clean and acknowledge that, because I understand that that is their intention. I believe that they should increase the Committee's membership, to facilitate the involvement of the parties that take part in the deliberations of the Westminster Parliament. Members of those parties should have seats on the Committee, which should, for the first time, be made a Committee of Parliament.
	I want to counsel caution on another issue. The Northern Ireland Assembly is extraordinarily large for a democratic legislature, but I think that we all know why. It is to make room in the garden for everyone, and it is a price worth paying. There is talk of reducing the size of the legislature in the long term, but I would counsel the need to keep the large numbers. The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) talked about the need for normal politics. I cannot help but reflect that Northern Ireland is not greatly different from the central belt of Scotland, where Protestant and Catholic working-class people have a truce and, by and large, vote for a radical party [ Interruption.] I carefully crafted my words when I said that. There is certainly a tradition among the Protestant and Catholic working-class people in Scotland of voting Labour. There are many people who hold office in local government in the Labour party who are members of the Orange Order. The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson), looks surprised at that. He really ought to know a bit more about the Labour party. There are many members of the Orange Order in Scotland who are active in the Labour party, to their credit, and there are of course many good Catholic folk as well.
	I dream of a day when people's aspirations regarding the national issue of Ireland can be accommodated in normal politics. Across Europe, we see the social democratic parties, the conservative parties, and so on. Given time, there could be a realignment of the political position in Irelandin Northern Ireland, in Irelandthat would make people feel more comfortable voting in a way that reflects the normal tradition. These provisions might be a vehicle for that.
	Most reasonable people will find it unacceptable for a political party not to accept a policing structure that has been carefully crafted. Supporters of Sinn Fein in the United States of America prevailed on it to sign up to the policing arrangements and worked with the political parties to craft the Police Service of Northern Ireland. It cannot be acceptable that any party is able to say that it still does not accept the policing structure, while expecting others to serve in government with it. There must be a test of reasonableness. If people are to be in government, they must accept the arrangement that has been agreed and welcomed by the overwhelming majority of people in Northern Ireland, namely, the courts and normal policing by the PSNI.
	I would not use terms such as United Kingdom courts or the royal courts of justice. They are Irish courts. It is an Irish police force. It happens that people have different traditions, but I would say to the people of Ireland that they can be Unionists and also proud to be Irish, as the regiments are. The point is that these are Irish courts, and it is an Irish police force.

Lady Hermon: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, but I cannot allow him to get away with that. He knows perfectly well that, when the people of Northern Ireland voted in their thousands for the Belfast agreement, they voted that Northern Ireland should remain an integral part of the United Kingdom unless or until they voted otherwise. The courts in Northern Ireland are British in the same way that the courts in Liverpool, London, Birmingham and everywhere else in the United Kingdom are. It is not correct to describe them as Irish. It is completely constitutionally and technically incorrect.

Peter Robinson: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to finish what I am saying, I will give way to him shortly.
	I recall the decision by the then Member for West Belfast, the Minister responsible for health, to take the maternity unit to her own constituency, despite and in defiance of the view of the Assembly's health committee and a vote by the Assembly itself. The system was clearly not accountable. Not only was it not accountable in terms of the Northern Ireland Assembly itself; it was not accountable in terms of the north-southery that went with it. The Bill, although inadequate in parts, will introduce more accountability than there was for the Belfast agreement: much-needed accountability.

Peter Robinson: What I have said is abundantly clear. I do not feel bound by any deadline in the process. Conditions have to be met. Will they be met by 26 March? I do not know, because I am not the one holding back progressSinn Fein is. On the basis of what the Government said, we expected Sinn Fein to come out of St. Andrews and call its ard chomhairleI hope that the  Hansard reporters do not ask me how to spell thattogether to pass a resolution that would be put before the ard fheis, which would take the decision to support policing and the courts in Northern Ireland. That has not happened. It has not even got to the stage of making a recommendation. Far from calling a meeting, the  Irish Times has revealed in the past few days that Sinn Fein is saying that until it gets a timetable for policing and justice to be devolved to Northern Ireland, it will not call the ard fheis. If that is Sinn Fein's position, it certainly is not a condition in the St. Andrews agreement. If the Government accepted that Sinn Fein had given a positive response to the agreement, I assume that they must have been prepared to move forward without that condition being met. Once again, they are asking people to meet the condition who are not responsible for meeting it.
	The position on policing and justice is as plain as a pikestaffan expression better known to those from the island of Ireland than anyone else. There can be no more sensitive issue affecting the people of Northern Ireland. It affects people's lives and is the key issue affecting their security and way of life in the Province. It cannot be ditched as part of a deal. Everybody has to be secure and confident about the issue before we move forward. I say to people in Northern Ireland that even if one of my colleagues were to be the Minister responsible for the issue, we would still do better not to have it included in the early stages of devolution . [ Interruption. ] I am glad that the hon. Member for Foyle agrees. To put policing and justice into an Assembly that had not bedded down would be madness. To put it into the hands of those who have been engaged in acts of terrorism and criminality would be absurd. The community would not tolerate that.
	The essential ingredient is community confidence. People must demonstrate that they have turned over a new leaf. As my right hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) said, they must prove that they have changed. It is not about what people say, but how they behave. That is what is important, but it will be a long time before the people of Northern Ireland accept the bona fides of any Sinn Fein Minister.
	I cannot create that confidence. In the comprehensive agreement of 2004, the Government said that they would work to create the community confidence that was necessary, as did the DUP. Both they and we can work as much we want, and I am sure that we will, but none of that will make any difference because it is Sinn Fein who must create that confidence. The people whom I represent have no confidence in Sinn Fein, so it us up to Sinn Fein to make the moves.
	What confidence could anyone in Northern Ireland have in a timetable for the devolution of policing and justice when Sinn Fein has yet to give any support to the police in Northern Ireland? It would be a bit cheeky of Sinn Fein members to want to hurry along the process of devolution even after they had given some support to the police and the courts but, as the hon. Member for Foyle said, they have a right neck to ask for it before they have even reached that stage. That is the reality in terms of policing and justice in Northern Ireland.
	I want to ask the Minister a few questions on the record. To avoid any suggestion that they are unexpected, I can tell the House that I gave him prior knowledge of the specific points that I intend to raise. I hope that he will be able to give the fullest possible answers to what are undoubtedly complex matters. If he does not have the necessary information, his officials certainly do. I am sure that he will want the courts, when they interpret the legislation, to have the benefit of the clearest possible ministerial statements to help resolve any ambiguity.
	Will the Minister confirm that the intention of the clauses on the ministerial code is to ensure that particular decisions set out in what will be sections 20(3) and (4) of the amended Northern Ireland Act 1998 will be decisions for the Executive and not for a Minister or junior Minister?
	Will the Minister confirm that a decision that, by virtue of proposed sections 20(3) or (4), ought to be brought to the attention of, and considered by, the Executive committee, will not be valid without the committee's approval, and that without such approval Ministers will have no authority to take any such decision? Will a Minister have authority to take a decision that is properly brought to the Executive committee under proposed new section 28A(5) but about which the Executive committee is unable to agree? What is the status of a decision taken by Ministers who do not have the necessary authority?
	Will the Minister confirm that the Bill will mean that any decision of the North/South Ministerial Council, which is cross-cutting by nature, or any other matter involving relationships with the Republic of Ireland that are affected by external relations, will have to go to the Executive for agreement? Without such approval, will Ministers have authority to take such a decision? Would any such ministerial decision be valid?
	Will any decision beyond a de minimis level that involves human rights, equality or economic policy issues and which is regarded as cutting across the responsibilities of two or more Ministers therefore need to be discussed and agreed by the Executive committee? Will any decision outside a Department's delegated authority that involves expenditure and which requires the approval of the Department of Finance and Personnel be regarded as one that cuts across the responsibilities of two or more Ministers? Would such a decision also need to be discussed and agreed by the Executive committee?
	I am sure the Minister will be pleased to hear that I have only one more question. Will any significant, strategic or controversial decisions fall outside the category of decision that could require the discussion of and agreement by the Executive committee?
	I gave the Minister notice that I would be asking those questions, and I know that he is ready to reply in great detail. It is important that those questions, and the Minister's replies, are placed on the record, as in one case that I once took right through to the House of Lords it was suggested that the Minister who had made certain remarks at the Dispatch Box was not necessarily aware of all the issues and so had not made a considered response. This Minister has had the opportunity to prepare, or at least his officials have, and I am therefore expecting a considered response from him tonight.

David Anderson: First, I apologise to the House for having to leave earlier.
	The question that we must ask ourselves is: why are we here? We might all have different reasons, but I think that the underlying reason is that we want to make Northern Ireland the same as every other part of the UK. We want people there to have the same experiences as other people in this country.
	I come from Sunderland, which is similar to Belfast, although I know that Belfast is not the same as the rest of Northern Ireland. Sunderland was built on ships; for many years, we were the biggest shipbuilding town in the world. It was built on hard work, and the people there played hard and worked hard. It was a town with poor housing in some areas, and poor educational achievements. Unemployment was endemic, and the population was made up of people from different religions and races.
	However, Sunderland was never a town where people killed each other, blew each other up, shot at the police or killed troops on the street. I want my town and Belfast to have the same future, even though they have had very different pasts. I am not saying that Belfast should become the second Sunderlandespecially as Niall Quinn and Roy Keane are trying to make Sunderland the second Dublin.
	We should grasp with both hands the chance that this debate offers. I am not a Johnny-come-lately to this discussion: those who have been involved in it in the year and a half since I came to the House will know that I have a long, proud record of representing people in Northern Ireland as a lay official of the Unison trade union.
	Unison had a chequered history in Northern Ireland. Some of its partner unions did not support or organise there, while others did. Some people did not believe that representatives from Great Britain should have any say in the day-to-day workings of the union in Northern Ireland. As a result, for the first two years that I was involved over there, we spent a lot of time talking to each other about what we would do to try to make the union work in Northern Ireland.
	Thankfully, the union did work over there. It worked because people worked together and ignored what was happening around them, although that is not to say that they did not care about what was happening outside. They developed an agenda that is non-partisan. If something is wrong it should be challenged: if people do not have jobs, if they have bad housing or are being mistreated at work, or if children do not have good schools to go to, that should be challenged and put right. Our agenda does not take sides on the constitutional position, and we have refused to be drawn into the argument about whether there should be a united Ireland, or whether Ireland should never be united. We chose instead to do the work that the union always does: protecting the working people in their day-to-day lives.
	The union supported civil rights issues on all sides and worked with the often ignored ethnic minority community in Northern Ireland. We argued with past Governmentsincluding a Labour Governmentfor better terms and conditions and against the privatisation of jobs. We acted as a catalyst for people to come together. We shared experiences with those in other parts of these islands and the Republic of Ireland about developing a way to devolution and self-determination.
	My union put peace and stability on the Labour party agenda. Before the Labour party came to power, we funded the work of the shadow Northern Ireland Office, because we believed that that was in the interests of the people of Northern Ireland and the members of the union. We promoted the equality agenda and we condemned attacks on innocent people at home and at work. We did what many hon. Members present did: we did our best, standing up for people and defending them.
	The union engaged with various political parties. One of my proudest moments was in 1996 when we organised a seminar in Newcastle, County Down, just five days after the bombing at Canary Wharf. The seminar was attended by representatives of almost every political party. It was one of the first times that we got together in one room, and it was a great success. An even greater success, for me, was my return to the same venue last month, as a member of the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs, under the leadership of the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack). The difference in the area is palpable, and the House and the nation should be proud of the changes that we have made in the past 10 years. We still have a lot of work to do, but we should congratulate ourselves on what we have done.
	When we were in Northern Ireland, we went to Belfast. People were having a discussion about the removal of murals. The argument was not, If you remove that mural, it is an attack on my culture and my past. The argument was whether removing the murals would have an impact on tourism. That shows again how the mindset has been changed in Northern Ireland as a result of the work that we have all done and should keep on doing.
	My union welcomed the Good Friday agreement back in 1998 as the best deal on offer. Clearly, some people did not agree with that, but the union stood up for the brave people who stood against the communities that they came from. They took a lot of personal flak, but they said, We believe this is the way forward for the people of this Province. The process has been neither happy nor straightforwardwe have talked about the problems tonightbut things have got better.
	I can remember when Belfast was almost a no-go area for people from Great Britain. The first time I went to Northern Ireland, I drove from Newcastle to Stranraer, and the last thing I did was fill up with petrol so that when I got off at Larne I did not have to stop at the border. Thankfully, that mentality no longer exists. The truth is that Northern Ireland is a place that people from all over the world, especially from this island, should go to, enjoy and respect.
	There is much more for us to do. As an advocate of devolution, I wish that the opportunities that are being given to Northern Ireland through the Bill and previous work had been given to the people of the north-east of England. If they had, we might have had devolution and been able to look after our people better. We must accept our responsibilities in this House. We have to do what we can for the people of Northern Ireland with the chance that we have got. I understand the issues that people have raised today; they are serious, genuine issues, but the underlying process must be to move forward. The local politicians and politicians in this House have shown that they can do that, and we should be proud of what they have done.
	The Bill lays the foundation for that to carry on. The people of Northern Ireland will be represented by their people. Northern Ireland politicians will be directly accountable to their people in a way that at this moment they are not, because they cannot deliver the things that people deserve and rightly expect. Northern Ireland Members will have the right to talk about transport, culture, arts, leisure and planning mattersissues that are now decided by Ministers and civil servants, who clearly do not have the same interest or faith in the people. Therefore, the Bill should be supported.
	One thing that kept me going through the debates when devolution broke down was that there had been some successes. I believe that those successes were achieved because the politicians were nearer to the people. The people were telling the politicians, We elect you; this is what we want you to do. People responded to that and should be allowed to do so again in the positive way that they did during the short period from 1998 onwards.
	The time has come for us to re-engage with that accountability. We owe it to the people of Northern Ireland and Great Britain to make that move forward. Any structural or ideological objections need to be sorted out and removed. I hope that that can be done in a timely way, but not so as it slows down the process until it yet again goes into reverse. The fact is that sometimes the best that we can achieve is not always what we want, but it is the best. The agreement and the Bill should be embraced by the politicians and the people of Northern Ireland, and should be implemented and pursued positively and progressively.
	I urge the political representatives of all parties to use this opportunity on behalf of their people, their communities and their cultures to accept that with this power comes a massive responsibilitya responsibility not to allow centuries of hatred and bigotry to get in the way of delivering for their people; a responsibility not to use the limits and restrictions in the legislation in a partisan way in order to further party political goals; and a responsibility to the rest of us in this Parliament and on this island to ensure that the faith that we place in them is not misplaced and not abused.
	This is a good day for democracy; it is a good day for my Government, for a succession of Ministers and for our Prime Minister, who has stood firm and led from the front in this debate for more than a decade. It is a good day for all the people in this House, in Northern Ireland and beyond who have refused to accept the rule of the gun over the rule of law. We should praise and congratulate those people. It is a good day for those who have said that terrorism will never ever succeed. Above all, it could be a good day for the great people of Northern Irelandif we have the bottle to get this right.

William McCrea: I mentioned earlier that Mr. Trimble has much to repent of as regards what he has done to the good people of Northern Ireland, for which he will go down in history.
	Let me make it abundantly clear: repentance is proved by action. Whenever a person repents, there is a change of mind and a change of heart, as the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) should know. That is why we have made it abundantly clear that words and rhetoric are out if that is all there is; there must be a credible period of testing to prove that there has been repentance and a change of mind and that Sinn Fein has turned its back on terrorism and completely renounced its path. It must prove that it is relying on the democratic mandate alone for the future of Northern Ireland.
	Should the House be interested in knowing whether I believe that Sinn Fein has come to that place, my answer is no I do not believe that it has done so, and I shall give the reason. In July, Michael McIvor, a Sinn Fein councillor, who is still a member of Sinn Fein, which has taken no action against him, made some comments about dissident republican groups. He claimed that the strength of Continuity IRA and the Real IRA had been blown out of proportion by the media and the police, because despite being responsible for a litany of killings and attacks they had
	never caused British army deaths.
	He described the Continuity IRA and the Real IRA as Brit loving, and said that there was no comparison between them and the Provisional IRA, because:
	The PSNI and those sections of the media who call the dissidents hardline refuse to tell the Irish people why the Continuity or Real have never killed a member of the Brit forces.
	They are, therefore, not heroes and not to be taken seriously because they have not murdered British forces. A member of Sinn Feinan elected representative of Sinn Feinsays that those people are not strong republicans because they have not put bodies in coffins. All the Bills in the world will not change that mindset. Until there is a turning away from that pathway and clear repentance, Sinn Fein members cannot be treated as democrats.
	What do we mean by support for the security forces? Is it just that Martin McGuinness, or somebody else with a history of terrorism as long as their arm, has only to say, I support the police? Of course, paragraph 6 of the agreement specifies that it is support for the Police Service of Northern Ireland, but he believes that Northern Ireland is a failed political entity. If he has to support the PSNI he will have to turn his republican philosophy on its head, because he will have to acknowledge that failed political entity. Indeed, if he wants to be part of the Northern Ireland Assembly Executive he will have to be part of that failed political entity, so his republican philosophy has disappeared in that respect. Furthermore, many members of the PSNI were formerly members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, which he also hated and despised, so that will be interesting.
	However, to give such support does not make Martin McGuinness a democrat or prove his credentials. He and Sinn Fein have to do that not only by word but in deed, and the Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition made it abundantly clear at the Dispatch Box the other day that one of the proofs was that they would have to hand over those responsible for the murder of Robert McCartney. Not only does Sinn Fein know who the murderers are, they are a part of that organisation. Let us see whether Sinn Fein gives those proofs by its actionsby handing over those whom it knows are responsible for murder and destruction in recent days, since the Belfast agreement.

Nigel Dodds: On the issue of criminal assets, we are glad to hear the news today of the freezing of the assets of one 'Slab' Murphy, whom Gerry Adams described as a decent republican [Interruption.]a decent republican farmer, not a criminal. Does my hon. Friend agree that the retention by any individual or organisation of the proceeds of crime is criminal activity in its own right, and that if the IRA is ending criminality it will need to make arrangements for the disposal of assets, not just have the Assets Recovery Agency seize them? Does he also agree that in the number of weeks that we have left before certain deadlines, whether it be an election or 26 March, it is going to take a lot of handing over to meet that deadline?

William McCrea: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, and I absolutely concur with every word. Yes it will take a lot, and those in this Administrationour Governmenthad better face up to those realities. As for deadlines, this party did not set the deadlines; and as for breaking the deadlines, those who set them are responsible for them, and we will not be put into the corner by any deadline that has been set, because for years the IRA has been given deadlines, and it has never kept one of them. It is supposed to have decommissioned all its weapons years ago, but it did not do so until it was forced into what was, indeed, considerable decommissioning whenever the screw was put on by the DUP and the leader of our party.
	The structures of the IRA have to be dealt with. We saw the dismantling of our army bases along the border, and now we are told that there is a considerable threat against the Protestant community along that border and in border areas. The structures of the community's defence have been taken away, but the structures of the IRA are not taken away. No; its structure is still there. As far as any democratic Government is concerned, there is no need for a paramilitary and there is no need for an army sitting in the wings to threaten those in a democratic society; so as far as the provisionals are concerned, the structures of the IRA have got to go.
	I simply say in closing that yes we have made progress, but certainly we have a long road to go. That may be a long, hard road, and if we break deadlines so let it be, but we are not misleading the people of Ulster, the people who have suffered for so many years. We want to ensure that we have a credible peacea definite peaceand that we shall have stability for our people in the future. That, in my opinion, is the best deal that we could do for Ulster.

Alasdair McDonnell: I shall be brief. I welcome the progress that we are making towards peace, stability and devolved government in Northern Ireland, however slow. The St. Andrews deal marks another milestone on that long, slow road and I hope that, perhaps, today will mark a milestone as well, enabling us to move forward.
	Like my hon. Friends the Members for Foyle (Mark Durkan) and for South Down (Mr. McGrady), I agree that this legislation has some positives, and perhaps a few negatives or failures. I think that our party, the SDLP, has the right to take credit for a lot of the positives. After all, this legislation contains many clear improvements on the draft legislation published last month by the Government, which would have implemented many aspects of the failed comprehensive agreement of 2004, which was negotiated between the two Governments and accepted readily by Sinn Fein and the DUP. The SDLP led the campaign to highlight not just the inadequacies but the blatant injustices of the comprehensive agreement. Above all, we highlighted the fact that it would have provided, in effect, for a voluntary coalition between Sinn Fein and the DUP, with other parties effectively automatically excluded from office. I welcome the fact that both the DUP and Sinn Fein negotiators have now thought the better of that voluntary coalition deal. However, I regret that the mechanism for ensuring it in the comprehensive agreement by excluding other parties is still being championed, unfortunately, by my friend the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) and his party.
	There are many things that I would like to say, but I particularly want to question the Secretary of State on the transitional Assembly that will emerge after Friday. Will the Secretary of State outline to us whether that Assembly will be treated any differently from the current so-called Hain Assembly, which I understand will disappear on Friday? I would like to knowand many have asked mewhat extra influence this transitional Assembly will have over water, planning, education, the review of public administration and the Workplace 2010 proposals. Will this Assembly have any consultative role? Will it have any more authority than the Assembly that is being wound up on Friday?
	I shall now discuss some of the other injustices that remain in the Bill. We are, it seems, to face elections on 7 March if all goes well between now and then, but it is a startling fact, which has just emerged, that up to 100,000 people10 per cent. of the potential electoratestand to be disfranchised in those elections. I have heard the Secretary of State, in sedentary remarks, suggest that the people will have their say on 7 March. At that rate, only some people will have their say; 10 per cent. will not. We understand from the Electoral Office for Northern Ireland that that 100,000 are missing from the register that will be used for the March election, compared with the register used for last year's elections to this House. That is no surprise, given that the public were relatively disengaged and were not, until now, fully aware that an election might emerge later next year. This year they were not expecting an election, and given that there is no carry forward from last year's register, the reality is that many people just did not bother; they did not feel any need to register to vote.
	To make matters worse, unlike in Britain where registration can take place up to 11 days before polling, in Northern Ireland the last day for registration will be 11 January. I make that 55 days before the elections. There was nothing in the St. Andrews deal that required that or even referred to that. That is why the SDLP will continue to push, for a carry forward of voters from last year's election register. The right to vote is precious, and it is unacceptable that 100,000 people should be denied the right to vote come 7 March.
	It is no more acceptable that thousands upon thousands of our young people should be denied the right to an equal opportunity in education, yet that is exactly what the Bill does. The fact is that the 11-plus and academic selection in Northern Ireland are very significantly failing pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds. Only 7 per cent. of those attending grammar schools in Northern Ireland are from disadvantaged backgroundsby contrast, 28 per cent. of those in secondary schools are from such backgrounds. If the system were working fairly, one would expect roughly a 17 per cent. slice right through all schools. That is why I and my party colleagues welcomed the education order passed by the Government earlier this year, which would provide for an end to the 11-plus and an end to selection in post-primary education. But

Lady Hermon: Thank you for calling me to speak, Madam Deputy Speaker; it is very kind of you to do so as we have only a brief time to complete our debate. It is a travesty that six and a half hours have been set aside for this Northern Ireland legislation. It has constitutional implications for Northern Irelandand I must say that I do not like the Bill one little bit. I can assure the hon. Member for Strangford (Mrs. Robinson) that not only did the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) smile this afternoon, but he was certainly smiling on Thursday after the publication of the Bill. I do not wonder a bit about that because the Bill contains so much of what the Democratic Unionist party wanted it to contain.
	That has come at a very high price for the rest of us because the people of Northern Ireland are fed up with direct rule. They are particularly fed up with having direct rule Ministers from the Labour party, because the Labour party does not organise or field candidates in Northern Ireland, and therefore the five current Northern Ireland Office Ministers are completely unaccountable to the people of Northern Ireland. That is not intended as a personal reflection on those who hold those offices, although I must say that if I were the Secretary of State I would be sincerely considering my position if I had read a High Court judgment of the tone, and with the depth of criticism, of that delivered by Mr. Justice Girvan in the Downes judicial review proceedings. Therefore, it is rather rich of the Secretary of State to come before the House and to talk about Sinn Fein delivering on policing and justice, when he knows that there are obligations on all Ministers to be candid, frank and open, and that they have an overarching duty to be honest with the courts. I must say that the credibility of the Secretary of State and the Government are in question.
	Today, in response to remarks of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik), the Secretary of State stood up at the Dispatch Box and glossed over the deadline of the 24 November. The commitment to that deadline was clearly given in this House on 26 April 2006. In a debate on the Northern Ireland Bill, the Secretary of State told the House:
	The Bill sets in statute 24 November as the date by which we must be able to restore devolution. That is the date by which the political parties in Northern Ireland must take responsibility for the Government of Northern Ireland, as they have been mandated to do.[ Official Report, 26 April 2006; Vol. 445, c. 597.]
	The Bill before us today asks us once again to push the people of Northern Ireland to accept a change in a deadline. That is a moveable feast and it is not fair to the people of Northern Ireland, who desperately want a devolved Assembly to deal with issues such as water and water charging, their rates, their education and local government reorganisation. But there is a costthe people of Northern Ireland want the real Assembly, not a Hain Assembly or a transitional Assembly. Our current Assembly has been suspended since 2002; it has been suspended for four years, with salaries and allowances continuing to be paid to Members of the Legislative Assembly, which means that about 2 million per month is being paid for a suspended Assembly.
	The people of Northern Ireland are entitled to know that, at some stage, a deadline means a deadline. I listened very carefully to everything said by the hon. Member for Belfast, Eastas I always do, regardless of whether I agree with him, which I rarely doand by the leader of his party, the right hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley). From what they have said, as well as from other responses and interventions, it is clear to me and to the Government that the DUP does not regard the 26 March deadline as a deadline at all [Interruption.] DUP Members are nodding and making sedentary interventions confirming that. In fact, the only amendments that they have tabled this afternoon would move the 26 March deadline.
	I, for one, am absolutely weary with this Government setting deadlines and then blinking firstthey always blink first. The difficulty with blinking is that the Government's credibility is always on the line. The Prime Minister has

David Hanson: I thank right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions. Because of the programme motion, I have very little time in which to respond, but I hope to deal with the points that were made as best I can in that time.
	I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Members for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), for North Down (Lady Hermon) and for Belfast, South (Dr. McDonnell)and, indeed, with my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) and my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr. Anderson)in that Northern Ireland is best governed when governed locally by an elected Assembly. I happen to think, rather modestly, that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I are doing a reasonable job, but I recognise that we are not elected or accountable in Northern Ireland, and we cannot be removed by the people there, so we have to get devolution back. That is the whole purpose of today's proceedings.
	I want to ensure that I get on the record my responses to the important points made by the hon. Members for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) and for Belfast, East, who both touched the accountability of Ministers and how the ministerial code and such accountability will work. Both asked the Secretary of State to confirm that the intention of the clauses dealing with the ministerial code is to ensure that the decisions set out in what will be section 20 (3) and (4) will be ones for the Executive to make, not for individual or junior Ministers. I can confirm that subsection (5) of new section 28A of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 will make it clear that the new code
	must include provision for requiring Ministers or junior Ministers to bring to the attention of the Executive Committee any matter that ought, by virtue of section 20 (3) or (4), to be considered by the Committee.
	That makes it clear that such matters are for the Executive committee, and that all Ministers have a duty to refer them to it.
	The hon. Member for Belfast, East also asked the Secretary of State to confirm that a decision that by virtue of section 20(3) or (4) ought to be brought to the attention of, and considered by, the Executive committee, is not validly taken without the approval of the Executive committee, and that without such approval, a Minister has no ministerial authority to take such a decision. I can confirm that subsection (6) of new section 28A requires the new code to establish a procedure to enable a Minister to check whether a decision that he proposes to take should properly fall to the Executive committee for consideration. If Ministers are in any doubt, they should avail themselves of the new procedure.
	The hon. Member for Belfast, East also asked whether a Minister has ministerial authority to take a decision that is properly brought to the Executive committee under a provision of the ministerial code, but on which the Executive committee is unable to agree. The Bill makes clear what issues Ministers are required to bring to the Executive, and places a legal duty on them to do so. It also places a duty on the Executive to decide how to handle issues that fall within their remit, either by consensus or by cross-community vote. I am labouring these points because I know that they are important to the hon. Gentleman and his party.
	The hon. Gentleman also asked the Secretary of State to indicate the status of a ministerial decision taken without ministerial authority. I can confirm that in such a case, the decision would have been taken in contravention of the code itself. As such, it would not be a legitimate decision and would be open to legal challenge. The Minister himself would also be liable to the existing procedures under the 1998 Act.
	The hon. Gentleman also asked the Secretary of State to confirm that, by virtue of the arrangements put in place by the Bill, details relating to the North/South Ministerial Council or any matter involving relationships with the Republic of Ireland will require Executive approval. I can confirm that such matters will be referred to under the ministerial code that applied until suspension, and will require Executive agreement. Under the arrangements provided for in the Bill, decisions taken without Executive agreement would not be legitimate and would be open to legal challenge.
	The hon. Gentleman also asked whether any significant strategic or controversial decisions will fall outside the category of decision that could require discussion by, and the agreement of, the Executive committee. Under new section 24, the Executive would have the function of discussing and agreeing on any significant or controversial matterand indeed, the code requires that such matters be brought before the Executive committee for consideration.
	The hon. Member for Belfast, East also asked about de minimis level engaging of human rights, equality or economic policy issues being regarded as matters that cut across the responsibility of two or more Ministers. It is difficult to answer that question, but I hope that the new code will include a procedure to enable Ministers to check whether a decision should properly fall to the Executive committee. His final point was whether any decision involving expenditure would require discussion and agreement by the Executive committee. The answer is yes.
	Today's proceedings lay the foundation for what I believe is a historic Bill and a historic decision, which looks toward restoring devolution and lays the framework for power sharing and for Sinn Fein recognition of and support for the police. That, in itself, would be a historic shift. The right hon. Member for North Antrim, the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) and indeed other hon. Members have strongly emphasised the need for that aspect to be placed on the record, in relation both to power sharing and to police recognition by Sinn Fein.
	I look forward to the Assembly meeting on Friday this week, when I hope that steps will be taken to put us on the road to ensuring that devolution is back in place by 26 March next year. I welcome the commitment of the right hon. Member for North Antrimand, indeed, the Member for Belfast, Westto this process and the work that has been done. I am sorry that I have not been able to respond to every point, because of the time available, but I am pleased to say that major steps are now being taken towards restoration of devolution. The Bill is the foundation for it and I am confident that, with the good will that I know exists between all parties, we will move towards devolution and restoration, in due course, by 26 March. Those who want devolved power exercised in Northern Ireland by local politicians, many of whom are in their places today, will welcome that.
	 It being Four hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Northern Ireland (St. Andrews Agreement) Bill [allocation of time] motion, Madam Deputy Speaker  put the Question, pursuant to Order [this day].
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Committee of the whole House, pursuant to Order [this day].
	 Bill immediately considered in Committee.

Nigel Dodds: Having castigated people for setting deadlines, I will not get into the business of starting to set them. That would be a grievous error. If we have learned anything, it is that we should not get into that game.
	On the hon. Gentleman's first question about whether such things are possible or probable, I repeat what I said: with every day that passes, it becomes increasingly difficult to convince people that the necessary movement and delivery will be achieved in policing, criminality and paramilitarism and all the other issues that my right hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim, my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East and others have mentioned already in the debate.
	These are not new issues. They must be delivered on, but we must have a period when people in Northern Ireland are truly convinced not only by word but by action that those matters have been dealt with. If they are not dealt with and people are not convinced, we will again have another recipe for collapse and crash, and no one wants that to happen. When we move, we must be certain that we are doing so on the basis of some kind of real delivery, so that people can be relatively convinced that it is the time to move. However, we must also ensure, as has also been mentioned, that any new devolution process includes a proper sanction or default mechanism. If anyone does not fulfil their obligations, there must be an effective mechanism to ensure that the whole thing does not collapse and that the people who are responsible for the default are punished.
	The amendment presents the Secretary of State with a choice. Is he honestly and genuinely saying that the 26 March is an absolute cut-off date and that he will bring the entire process to an end even if Sinn Fein has not called its conference or has not made sufficient progress on policing, because it has decided to draw out the process and to refuse to give and deliver on the issues on which everyone knows it must deliver? Is he honestly saying that that is the Government's position? Is it not more sensible to include a provision in the legislation that accepts the reality that, if the conditions are not right, we must continue to work with the progress that has been made to ensure that the delivery happens and that, at the right time, we can move forward on a stable basis with devolution?
	We have referred to the issues during interventions. It is clear what must happen in the period between now and 26 March. There must be delivery by Sinn Fein in support of policing. We know what is in the pledge, but we also know that there must be delivery in terms of people supporting the police and encouraging others to give information to the police. People have rightly said that one of the litmus tests is the McCartney case and whether or not the provisional movement is prepared to give up people.
	We have heard some discussion about the devolution of policing and justice. Sinn Fein appears to be setting a precondition that it will not hold any conference unless it has a date from the DUP on the timetable for policing and justice. Sinn Fein requires of the DUP some agreement on the modalities of the type of department that will administer policing and justice. It also requires of the Government delivery in respect of MI5 and other issues. No doubt, it has thrown a number of other issues into the pot as well.
	It has been said todaylet me repeat it for the Secretary of State, who may not have been here when it was said previouslythat the DUP does not regard the devolution of policing and justice as happening any time soon. It would be complete madness to believe that a newly created Assembly would somehow be made more stable with the devolution of such powers, no matter about the modalities of how those powers would be administered. For anyone to suggest that some kind of arrangement should allow Sinn Fein members anywhere near the administration of policing and justice in a devolved settlement is simply ludicrous.
	I have said before in the Chamber and in a Committee upstairs how long that period might be in my viewa political lifetimeand I repeat it for those who think that perhaps I shy away from doing so. I believe that many people in Northern Ireland would be totally appalled at the notion of the likes of Gerry Kelly and Martin McGuinness being in charge of policing and justice. I know the reaction of the House if anyone were to suggest that those who were involved in the current campaign of bombing in London and Britainno matter what words they might utter or however much they say that they have repentedshould at any time be placed in charge of or have influence over the administration of policing and justice on the mainland. People would be absolutely appalled at such a notion. People in Northern Ireland are entitled to reassurance on that matter, and on that matter, we give them that reassurance. If Sinn Fein is upset by that, so be it.
	Sinn Fein's argument appears to be that it is unreasonable to ask it to support policing while denying it control or influence over the police. To be fair to the SDLP and to large sections of the nationalist community, they were prepared to come forward and sign on for policing, to support policing and to encourage people to give evidence to the police and to join the police without any demand that they should have control over the devolution of policing and justice. Sinn Fein makes a different demand: it will support policing when it gets control. People only get control when there is confidence in the community and they earn the trust of the community. That is not to be bargained with.

Mark Durkan: It is not the case that we have no demand or requirement for the devolution of justice and policing at ministerial level? Clearly, the Good Friday agreement envisaged that, as did the Patten report, but it recommended the establishment of the Policing Board to do the job for a number of years, with the devolution of justice and policing to follow. That is why we want the devolution of justice and policing to follow the good work of the Policing Board.

Sammy Wilson: Yes, they have made that clear. The amendment is not an attempt to put off the decision on devolution.
	The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. Reid) seemed to be concerned that the amendment would simply push back the date for devolution. In fact, the amendment is designed to ensure that, if devolution is possible, it will happen and it will be sustainable. He was concerned about the failure of the timetable, but we believe that the timetable is likely to lead to a failure of any ability to have devolution, because it is set against a background in which there is no guarantee.
	The Secretary of State has made it clear that he will not even set an expectation for when Sinn Fein should make a commitment to support policing in Northern Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman's evasiveness on that point will not help to create the conditions in which Sinn Fein is able to give the community in Northern Ireland the assurance that the party has truly changed its position on policing. He is beholden to stop that ambivalence. In the past, in the face of what the parties all around him were saying, he insisted that he would not set a new precondition for devolution, so he avoided saying whether Sinn Fein had to be committed to policing. That was less than five months ago. Now, he has bowed to the arguments and accepted that devolution is not possible without support for policing, but he will not spell out to Sinn Fein that it must give an early commitment to policing and prove that it supports the police.
	If we abide by the timetable laid down, Sinn Fein could, as some hon. Members have said, hold its conference and make its commitment to devolution the day before the Assembly is up and running. Judging by the debate so far, the Secretary of State believes that, the next day, Sinn Fein Members could walk in, take a pledge and, hey presto, that would be what is meant by making a commitment to policing. However, the DUP believes that making that pledge should be the culmination of Sinn Fein's transition from a party that is opposed to the police, does not support the police, discourages people from joining the police and has been hostile to the police. It is the culmination of a process: first, Sinn Fein accepts that it has an obligation to support the police; then it fulfils that obligation by doing something in the interim period; and finally its Ministers make the pledge to support the police. The pledge is not the start of the process, but its culmination.
	That means that time will be required. As long as the Secretary of State allows Sinn Fein to put off the day on which it starts that process, the timetable for devolution will be elongated. It has to be, if there is to be confidence in any devolution settlement that is finally arrived at. That is why the Secretary of State was pressed today to say when he wants Sinn Fein to start that process. Is it this month? Is it before Christmas? Is it January? The hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) even asked the Secretary of State to tell us whether it is before the election or after it. We could not get a response from the Secretary of State.
	The reason why there must be a testing period for Sinn Fein is that people in Northern Irelandand certainly not those in the Unionist communitydo not believe the words that Sinn Fein speaks. I sat as a member of Belfast city council from 1981. In 1985 or 1986, all members were supposed to pledge to support non-violence and to oppose the use of violence to pursue political ends. During that period, after they took that pledge, I heard Sinn Fein members justify the bombing of Belfast and defend the murder by the IRA of some council members and council workers. Their words did not mean a thing. That is why there must be a testing period.
	Sinn Fein has established a situation in which there is no trust. We do not want a repetition of what has happened in the past two years. Let me give three instances, one of which has already been mentioned. The police raided the home of a prominent IRA man, where they found a laptop and money. He had been involved in criminality. Gerry Adams, the Member for Belfast, West, who does not come to this House, condemned the police and the Garda in the Irish Republic for raiding the home of a farmer, saying that he was being persecuted for his republican views and was only trying to make an honest living. The leader of Sinn Fein defended his criminal activity and opposed those who tried to bring him to justice for it. Today, 1 million-worth of his assets have been seized.
	A young girl was raped in Gerry Adams' constituency, a video was taken of her rape on her telephone, and the pictures were sent to her mother. When he was asked whether the perpetrators should be turned in to the police and the people who know their names should give evidence to the police, he refused to tell his own constituents to turn such barbaric people over to the police.
	Two people were set on fire in their own home. The man is already dead, the girl is seriously ill in hospital, and the house is burned to the ground. Within the past three weeks, the Member for Newry and Armagh, who does not sit in this House either, has refused publicly to encourage anybody to give information to the police about that crime.
	Against that background, it is necessary to have a period between Sinn Fein speaking the words of support for the police and showing that it is prepared to practise support for the police and encourage others to do so. That is why the timetable set down by the Secretary of State in the Bill is unrealistic. If he wants Sinn Fein to make a declaration within a certain period, I am prepared to listen to him, but as he has not been prepared to say when that process starts, he cannot expect the democratic parties to live by a time by which he says the process has to end. We must have a period for that testing process.
	I am still not clear about the position of the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon). She is right to say that people in Northern Ireland want devolution and want to move away from the cynical way in which we have been governed, whereby things have been done to blackmail, bribe or bully people, even if those were not good policies and utterly contrary to the policies that the Government operate in other parts of the United Kingdom. Of course people want to move away from that so that we can make our own decisions in Northern Ireland through a devolved Assembly, but we cannot afford to ignore the requirement that the parties that will engage in that activity must have a clear-cut position on the police. The hon. Lady did not make it clear whether she believes that it is more important to have devolution or to have all the parties involved in devolution signed up to policing. If it is the latter, she should have no difficulty with the moving of the deadlines and dates.

Sammy Wilson: How quickly the conditions are met will depend on the enthusiasm with which Sinn Fein embraces the democratic process. If it moves quickly in dismantling its terrorist structures and in encouraging people in the nationalist community who support the police, if its members give strong support to the police, and if, when incidents happen, it encourages the public to help the police to catch the criminals, the period of building confidence in the fact that there has been a genuine change will be much shorter than if it is done in its usual begrudging way. The time that is required to move forward will depend on how quickly Sinn Fein acts on its words. I cannot have any control over that, the Secretary of State cannot have any control over it, and this House cannot have any control over it, but Sinn Fein has control over it. That is why setting arbitrary deadlines when we do not know how or when Sinn Fein is likely to act creates an impossible situation.
	For far too long, people in Northern Ireland have felt that what has happened, and what has been demanded of them, has been set by other people's agendas. Many people feel at present that the deadline of 26 Marchthe springtimehas been set not because the Secretary of State has made a judgment that that is the time required for Sinn Fein to take the first step and then move towards showing its acceptance of policing, but because it is an important date for the Secretary of State, who has an agenda and a timetable that he has to work towards. There are important elections and important positions to be sought in the Labour party. Some of the cynicism about dates in Northern Ireland has been driven by the belief that the agenda and the timetable is more to do with the political advancement of the Secretary of State or the political legacy of the Prime Minister.

William McCrea: I wish to say a few words on an issue that appears to be precious to the Secretary of State and the Government.
	Sinn Fein Members do not come to the House, but no doubt they will listen carefully to our debate, and some people will be quick to tell them about it. However, our debate provides an opportunity for everyone, including the Government, to take a reality check. We need a good dose of reality. When David Trimble led the Ulster Unionists the people of Ulster were served fudge every day until it came out of their years and they were sick to the teeth of it. Issues were not nailed down, so the people of Northern Ireland are not willing to take anything on trust, whether from the Government or from Sinn Fein. By their deeds and actions shall ye know them.
	The Secretary of State cannot tell us when a declaration has to be made about the security forces, and he cannot tell us when he expects the process to startbut we can do so. In the words of the hymn:
	The sands of time are sinking.
	They are sinking fast. I understand where the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) was coming from, but if a meeting was held and that declaration was made for the election on 7 March, would that be suitable? Without such a declaration, the democrats would have to stand on people's doorsteps and say, Trust Sinn Fein. A credible period is required, and if anyone in the House thinks that a declaration made at the end of February or March will wash with democrats, they are living up a gum tree. They had better come down to realitythat is the reality check that I was talking about.
	The issues are extremely clear, but the people of Northern Ireland must be convinced. The Unionist population has been slaughtered by IRA scum, so they will not take anything on trust. They will not accept verbiageit is usually garbagefrom the sources of republicanism, and they look carefully at action. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) asked what the DUP would do. We have set out a list of things and we have tried to be open and honest. The Secretary of State knows that confidence-building measures must be nailed down. We have been honest and open with the Government; we are not playing games with anyone. The DUP is playing a straight bat and unless those measures are nailed down, 26 March is outside the field.

Nigel Dodds: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to that poll, because the Secretary of State is always keen to refer to the opinions of the people of Northern Ireland. He should also take on board the opinions of leading churchmen recently who, when asked the same question, said that more time should be given. Of course, every sensible person believes that if we have not reached a point at which everybody has made a commitment to full support for the police, the courts and the rule of law and a complete end to criminality and paramilitarism, we should wait until everybody has made that commitment and delivered on those issues.
	The Secretary of State referred to specific comments that I made about devolution of policing and justice. I stand by those comments, just as my hon. Friends stand by their comments. The Secretary of State should not pretend that those comments form a new position. I refer him to  Hansard for 17 May, col. 1032, where my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) said that he could not envisage devolution of policing and justice happening in his lifetime. Later in that debate, at col. 1037, I made similar remarks, as did my hon. Friend the Member for South Antrim (Dr. McCrea). So the Secretary of State should not pretend that this is somehow a deeply unhelpful new demand. It is on the record. That is our position and that is where we stand. Sinn Fein will have to prove to people in Northern Ireland that it is committed to policing, justice, courts and the rule of law without being given control over the police service. That can be granted only when the community has confidence, and I cannot see that happening for a political lifetime.
	 Question proposed, That the amendment be made.

Mark Durkan: In the course of my remarks I will nail each and every one of those misrepresentations of what actually happened.
	The fact is that for key decisions, the ministerial code, and particularly the ministerial code as amended, including in the aftermath of the decision on Belfast maternity services, already made it very clear when Ministers had to bring things to the Executive. The DUP pretends that nobody had to bring anything to the Executivethat there were no requirements for accountability, transparency or notifying people of anything. We had quite a sizeable ministerial code, which covered all those issues.
	Ministers also had to get the approval of the Executive for key proposals, and even DUP Ministers did so; even they had to submit memorandums to the very Executive that they had promised to destroy. Yes, it was a bit of a phony correspondence between the Executive and the DUP, but the fact is that DUP Ministers had to abide by the ministerial code and send a number of their key proposals in to the Executive.
	Yes, we have proposed on previous occasions, and will propose again, that far more transparency should be built into prior notification of possible ministerial decisions, to the departmental Committees as well as to the Executive, but all our proposals for added transparency and up-front declarations by Ministers and Departments were actually rejected by the DUP when we made them in the review of the Good Friday agreement and at the subsequent talks at Leeds castle. The DUP said that our proposals for far more accountability, transparency and scrutiny in the Assembly were actually providing for too much transparency and too much accountability. The truth is that the DUP is not interested in accountability in the true and proper sense of that term, or transparency for the public good; the DUP is into private vetoes, and DUP contributions to the debates this evening prove that members of the DUP are not reformed vetoholics. They are still vetoholics, committed to taking every veto they can get when they can get it, and once they start on the vetoes they just cannot stop themselves. That is the reality.
	That is why I pointed out earlier the mistake that was made in the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2006, which gave the DUP the triple lock on the devolution of justice and policing. The DUP has been brandishing it ever since. We now get these cries of Shock! and Horror! and Disgrace! from Sinn Feinthe very people who applauded as that veto was handed to the DUP in legislation, when people were doing handstands and saying that it was wonderful legislation that would seal the devolution of justice.
	Our amendments purport to address what we see as a number of problems with new vetoes that are gratuitously given, especially to the DUP, in the Bill. Decision making will be snarled up and complicated. That is something that the provisions in the Bill invite via politics, and they will guarantee bad government.
	We are reinforced in our opposition to the provisions in clause 5, and some of the provisions in clause 6 in the light of the Minister of State's answers to the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson). He gave carefully choreographed answersit was a side deal unveiled in publicthat show that this is really about giving the DUP the sort of drive-by vetoes that the SDLP has complained about ever since they were provided for in the so-called comprehensive agreement of December 2004.
	Members of the DUP might argue that they want to have more controls and more constraints on Ministersfurther obligations for Ministers. But under legislation already passed by Parliament, if a Minister breaches the ministerial code a complaint can be brought to the Independent Monitoring Commission, and if the IMC upholds that complaint, the Secretary of State can impose sanctions against the Minister, regardless even of the will of Assembly. That, as well as a ministerial code that the DUP has been in denial about, undermines and refutes the case for the sort of changes in this Bill that Ministers have granted to the DUP.
	The Bill goes radically further than what existed before, because it imposes a legal duty on Ministers to comply with the ministerial codea code that cannot always be as tightly drafted as one might want, and which, for very good reasons, might in part have to be drafted more loosely. Clause 5 goes on to provide that a Minister has no authority to take any decision against the ministerial code. As the Minister said in reply to questions asked by the hon. Member for Belfast, East, that will mean that any decision taken that might not be in compliance with the ministerial code could be subject to full legal challenge.
	When I look at the existing ministerial code, I can see all sorts of grounds on which Ministers might take cases against other Ministers for supposedly not complying with it, and possibilities that subsequently, one or two years down the road as things are being implemented, consequential issues will be raised and people will then discover that those issues all stem from a ministerial decision taken a couple of years ago that was not in compliance with the ministerial code. A vested interestperhaps a wealthy business person or some other third-party interestmight then decide, We can gridlock the whole thing; we can take this into the Northern Ireland courts. They will not have to find a ruse involving people breaking a European Union regulation and take that to Brussels. They will have far more things on which to take Ministers and Departments to court than merely issues such as not complying with consultation requirementsthe very issue that has seen Ministers from a number of Departments in courts in recent times. We could have Government gridlocked.
	Taking such decisions into courts can cause hardship for third parties who are relying on decisions being implemented and followed through, and that can of course be exploited by cynical third parties who want to stand in the way of people benefiting from certain Government decisions; those third parties might want to complicate issues regarding contracts that have been awarded, or to stop contracts in their tracks, which might prevent roads or hospitals from being built. That is what can come from elevating into law the requirement for Ministers to comply with the ministerial code, and from saying that anything that people can allege is shy of the ministerial code to any degree can automatically be a matter for the courts.
	Under the Bill's provisions, it will be impossible for Ministers to move quickly to deal with emergencies such as an influenza epidemicavian flu might hit usor foot and mouth disease. Foot and mouth hit us during the last period of devolution, and there were issues and sensitivities concerning the fact that the then Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development took the straightforward decision to close the ports. That helped to save Northern Ireland from the scourge of foot and mouth, but under the proposals being discussed, that Minister would not be able to do that. Under these proposals, that Minister would have to wait at least a week until there was an Executive meeting, and even then would not be able to take that decision if other Executive Ministers had any issues with it. So under these provisions we could end up not with bad decisions but with no decisions, which would be worse.
	The Government will say that the provisions are necessary in order to implement St. Andrews, which states that a duty to comply with the code will be placed on Ministers. But we have heard tonight from the leader of the DUP, the right hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley), that St. Andrews is just a white document between two Governments, which has no meaning or standing. He does not himself feel obligated by anything else in St. Andrews. If that is his attitude, why should the Government feel obligated to make the provisions in St. Andrews that are under discussion, just because they are for the DUP? When the DUP does not want to abide by St. Andrews, that is okay by the Government. When the DUP wants everybody else to abide by St. Andrews and hold us ruthlessly to it, that is okay by the Government too, because the Government are just here to do the DUP's willthat is just the way that this process is run at this stage.
	It is not necessary to meet any legitimate concerns that people have about making sure that the ministerial code has good standing, because we have provided other amendments to this Bill that would do that. They would impose a duty in respect of the ministerial code through the pledge of office. If the DUP find it significant and pertinent to have other commitments made through the pledge of office, why not also make commitments to the ministerial code and its standing through the pledge of office? Of course, the advantage of that is that a duty under the pledge of office can be enforcedshould such a situation ever ariseby the International Monitoring Commission, not by the courts.

Mark Durkan: It is incredible on one level, but not on another. Members of the DUP feel that the Government are here to do their job for them. Indeed, my hon. Friend has made my pointmembers of the DUP can remain safe in the knowledge that the Government are making changes on their behalf, and defending and justifying those changes; they do not have to be here to justify them themselves.
	That is what this process has boiled down to. It is a competition between Sinn Fein and the DUP to see who can take away the mostto see who can force the Government to stand up and justify their position, without their having to do it. If Sinn Fein can get the Government to present legislation here for them, without their having to be here, DUP members are probably asking, in the name of equality, why they should have to be here to seek their changes, if the Government can do it for them instead. That is exactly the problem that we face, and it shows the contempt with which this process and this House are being treated. The DUP Members know that have already got what they want from the Government, and that is good enough for them, but it does not prevent them from trying to push back deadlines and throw other spanners in the works.
	In fairness, one member of the DUP was here and did ask me questions, which I said I would address. Both she and the hon. Member for Belfast, East mentioned the decisions on maternity services in Belfast, including that taken by Bairbre de Brun, who happened to be a Sinn Fein Minister. The decision that Bairbre de Brun took was in keeping with the decision that the direct rule Minister preceding her was planning to take. It was based on the prevailing, overwhelming and clear medical advice that the best place to site maternity services in Belfast was the Royal Victoria hospital, because it had paediatric services. Contrary to the insinuation by the hon. Member for Belfast, East that Bairbre de Brun took the decision simply to favour her own constituency, I would argue that many of the objections to her decision were based precisely on the fact that the hospital was in west Belfast. I do not think that she took the decision because the hospital is in west Belfast; indeed, a lot of people disagreed with it because it is in west Belfast.
	However, under this legislation, we could end up with no decision on such an issue. Everybody agreed that for the sake of maternity services in Belfast, a decision had to be taken in favour of one site. We could no longer maintain maternity services at both the Belfast City hospital and the Royal Victoria hospital. Under the Bill before us, a Minister of health might want to take such a decision again. A health Minister would have to go to the Executive and if three other Ministers disagreedfor whatever reasons, including their own partisan or constituency reasonswe would end up with no decision being taken.

Mark Durkan: Yes, it was absolutely right, which is why I and most of my colleagues voted in support of the health Minister's decision and against the censure attack when other parties in the Assembly sought to press for a vote. The final decision was not actually taken by Bairbre de Brun. Current direct rule Ministers are becoming increasingly familiar with judicial reviews, under one of which Bairbre de Brun and the Department were taken to court over the procedure. The court found that the procedure was deficient and the consideration process and decision had to be taken again. Finally, a direct rule Minister took the same decision and followed the same prevailing medical advice.
	Another example is the supposed decision taken by the then Minister of Education, Martin McGuinness, on the 11-plus. Let us be clear. If the suspension had not happened, we would not have had the rushed announcementinspired by public relations and other purposes. We should remember that there is a difference between an announcement and a decision: announcing that the 11-plus is to go after 2008 is one thing; taking a decision on what replaces it is quite another. That is the real issue at stakebut we never had such a decision. Only a few weeks previously, Martin McGuinness, as Minister, told the Assembly that a further consultation exercise would take place and that no decision would be taken without the matter first being referred to the Executive and coming before the Assembly. Only then, as things destabilised into suspension, did Martin McGuinness face the free context of no Assembly sitting and make his announcement in the hope that it would bind subsequent direct rule Ministers. One can understand the motives and considerations involved there.
	I would refute what the hon. Member for Strangford (Mrs. Robinson) implied in respect of those two decisions. I would also point out that she was wrong in trying to say that there was absolutely no accountability or scrutiny in terms of north-south. Ministers could not go to a north-south ministerial council meeting without all of the papers for the meeting being shared not just with the accompanying Minister, but with the whole Executive. They had to inform and come before the departmental committee of the Assembly to speak to the issues and they had to make a full statement after the meeting to the Assembly, and be open to a full hour of questions.
	After a while, unpredictably in these matters, the questions did not last anything like an hour because people were so content, and the business was straightforward. There was no big mystery to it. If anything, the question was why more north-south business was not happening, as it could be made more productive and more relevant by giving the bodies more rather than less to do.
	I fear that the Government, by giving the DUP the sort of drive-by vetoes that it sought, are granting a concession too many. As I mentioned to the Secretary of State earlier, that is why we are glad that there is a sunset clause that would dissolve the changes if the DUP does not comply with the deadline.

Kevan Jones: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise a matter that is important to the people of Stanley in my constituency. For the past few months, with many of my constituents, I have been fighting a battle to save View Lane park in Stanley. The park was originally gifted to the people of Stanley by Lord Joicey, and has existed as a public park for their benefit ever since. Not only is it an important and welcome recreational space, but it is of major historical significance and it has a wealth of flora and fauna, making it a wildlife haven in an urban area. In recent years, Derwentside district council, which owns the park, has been criticised by local residents for failing to maintain it to a high standard. Despite that, the park remains a well used community facility.
	Recently, a property development company, Mistal Homes Ltd, made an unsolicited approach to the district council offering to purchase half of the total area of the park to build what it calls a residential centre for adults with autism on the site. I have serious concerns about the proposed development and about Derwentside district council's behaviour in dealing with it.
	There is abundant local opposition to the sale and development of the park. I have been contacted by hundreds of local residents who do not wish to lose a significant part of an historic and well loved park. I pay tribute to Dr. David Walton and the members of the View Lane park action group, who have been campaigning to secure a future for the park. I also wish to put on record my appreciation of the tremendous efforts made by local councillors Derek Little, Kevin Howe, Carl Marshall and David Broadly. County councillors Clare Vasey and Edna Hunter have also assisted residents in their fight. A petition of more than 100 residents was submitted, along with several letters objecting to the development, and at the two consultation events held by the council, no one spoke in favour of the proposed development.
	The sale of the land will result in a capital sum of 600,000 for Derwentside district council, which has stated that it intends to spend some of the moneyI emphasise, some of iton improving the rest of the park. The council claims that that is the only way to improve the rest of the park; I shall return to that point later in my speech. It is also important to note the claim that Mistal Homes approached the district council, as opposed to the council offering the land for sale.
	When councillors took the decision, both in principle and in subsequent meetings, to proceed with the sale of the land, there was no discussion and no information was given to councillors regarding Mistal Homes' financial position or the company's track record. I find that odd, especially as I have been advised that the firm in question has no track record and has been registered with Companies House only since January. What is clear is that it is a property development company, with no background in care provision. The company will simply build the facility, then sell it on to the highest bidder.
	I am also concerned that one of Mistal Homes' directors, Mr. Hampshire, has declared to Companies House that he has no other directorships apart from that of Mistal Homes. However, research by Dr. David Walton shows that he is also a director of several other companies, one of which, Chartnell Ltd, is late in filing its accounts and is proposed to be struck off by Companies House. A post in the  London Gazette in September suggested that the company in question is going to be wound up under the terms of the Insolvency Act 1986.
	I was able to get hold of copies of the minutes of the council's executive meeting of 24 July, when it was agreed to sell the land in question. No mention was made of the widespread public opposition. A discussion took place regarding alternative forms of funding, including lottery funding, but misleading statements were made by the officers in question. A Councillor Llewellyn, who is part of the executive of Derwentside district council, questioned the officers and asked whether they would try to get lottery funding to improve the park. According to the minutes, the acting head of leisure advised
	that there is a limited number of funds for ground work and less opportunities for local authorities to apply.
	That is patently untrue. The Heritage Lottery Fund's Parks for People scheme, which opened applications this year, is intended to include major capital works and is specifically tailored towards applications from local authorities. Its guidance notes say that it expects most applications to come from local authorities. In light of that, the comments of the acting head of leisure clearly misled the councillors who took this decision. This week, I was grateful to receive from Shaun Walsh of the Big Lottery information about not only this fund but the excellent work that the lottery has done to fund other parks around the country. I therefore question the validity of any decision taken by the council on the basis of misleading information from a senior officer. That must prompt the question that alternative forms of funding were available but were not put forward to councillors. The head of leisure's claim that no other form of funding was available was clearly untrue. This must be investigated, and I have written to the district auditor to that end. The objections of local people were completely ignored, to such an extent that I would argue that this represents maladministration.
	Unfortunately, that is not the only aspect of the Derwentside district council's behaviour that has left my constituents wondering what planet it inhabits. I was concerned that the council's bias towards the scheme, and the fact that it stands to gain financially, made it difficult for councillors to make any impartial decisions when the matter came before the development control committee. In August, I wrote to the Secretary of State to request that the planning application be called in given the controversial nature of the development and the clear regional interest for the future of the park. Under the criteria governing call-ins, it is stated that cases to be called in may include those which
	give rise to substantial regional or national controversy.
	The proposed building on View Lane park has led to a lot of regional controversy. It has been featured in local newspapers including  The Northern Echo and  The Journal and on BBC local radio and Durham FM. The world-respected naturalist, Professor David Bellamy, has also made clear his concerns about the development.
	The proposed development appears to be in direct conflict with planning policy guidance note 17, which states:
	Existing open space, sports and recreational buildings and land should not be built on unless an assessment has been undertaken which has clearly shown the open space or the buildings and land to be surplus to requirements.
	No evidence has been put forward by Mistal Homes or Derwentside district council to support the view that the land in question is surplus to requirements. PPG17 also states:
	Parks, recreation grounds, playing fields and allotments must not be regarded as 'previously-developed land'.
	In spite of that, the planning application describes the site as brownfield. Derwentside district council has confirmed that it regards the terms brownfield and previously developed to mean the same thing. The application was therefore not made in accordance with PPG17. I wrote to the Government office for the north-east on the subject, but unfortunately it did not agree to a call-in. That was a great disappointment to my constituents and to me. I was disappointed by the Government office's arrogant attitude; I expected it to give me its reasons for refusing to call in the application, but it did not.
	As might have been expected, my concerns about Derwentside district council's ability to make an impartial decision on the scheme were well-founded, because on 12 October, the council rubber-stamped the decision to grant itself planning permission for the site. The council was intent on taking View Lane park away from my constituents, and that has raised a number of questions about the council's efficacy. It has failed properly to consult local people and officers deliberately misled councils about lottery funding to improve the park. There was a failure to check the business background of Mistal Homes, a disregard of local people's views, and a failure to understand the park's importance to the people of Stanley, and the council has shown an inability to grasp the fact that the proposal does not fit with planning policy. That is a litany of failures, and I unreservedly condemn the council for the way in which it handled events.
	I have been raising concerns about Derwentside district council's conduct in respect of planning matters for some time, and in the past I have asked for an investigation. It has been brought to my attention that the chairman of the development control committee and the leader of the council hold pre-meetings before the planning committee meets, to decide what they will do. The leader of the council is on the planning committee, and I am told that he moves every single recommendation to the planning committee. Two weeks ago, that resulted in the spectacle of planning permission being granted for a development on green belt land, on a site owned by a fellow member of the planning committee, despite the fact that officers produced a strongly worded report, saying that the application should be rejected. That is the behaviour of a banana republic, rather than what we would expect from the open, transparent democracy in the UK.
	I have written to the Government office for the north-east, asking for an investigation into planning matters. I suggest to the Minster that the way in which the council deals with planning matters seriously needs investigating. I am disappointed that the Secretary of State did not feel able to intervene in the case. That highlights the weaknesses and shortcomings in the call-in system. There is no third-party right of appeal left to my constituents. Derwentside district council, clearly in collusion with Mistal Homes, has steamrolled ahead with the proposed development on a beautiful, historic park. I note that, in the Queen's Speech, there is a proposal for the reform of the planning system. I suggest that the call-in system be considered, as well as the ability of local communities to appeal planning decisions. I am not referring to every single small item, but to applications affecting areas of major importance, such as View Lane park. I am talking about applications that are of concern to not just one or two people, but major communities whose interests are being ridden over, roughshod, by arrogant and uncaring councils, such as Derwentside district council.